Back

Addressing Cervical Cancer Screening Through Self-Sampling and HPV Testing Among Under-Screened Women: A Case Study in the Decentralized Portuguese Setting

Pereira, S. G.; Nobre, L.; Ribeiro, M.; Carvalho, P.; Morais, A.; Sousa, R.; Moniz, A. P.; Matos, F.; Fernandes, G.; Pimentel, J. P.; Marinho, J. C.; Sa, J. L.; Ilheu, O.; Rebelo, T.; Fonseca-Moutinho, J.; Prazeres, H.; Nobre, R. J.; Loureiro, F.

2024-04-11 public and global health
10.1101/2024.04.05.24305323 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCervical cancer (CC) screening is crucial for reducing its incidence. However, encouraging participation among under-screened women remains challenging. Portugals decentralized health regions provide an ideal case study due to a significant proportion of eligible women avoiding regular screening. Globally, self-sampling has emerged as a promising solution to enhance screening attendance. This study aims to assess self-sampling acceptance among under-screened women in central Portugal, contributing to the existing knowledge of self-sampling in CC screening. Methods801 women aged 30-59, not participating in the Central Regions CC Screening for 4 or more years, were randomly recruited. Women who accepted to participate in the study received cervicovaginal self-sampling kits at home. Women with a positive high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) test result were invited for gynaecological follow-up. ResultsAmong the 687 eligible women, 307 (44.7%) accepted, and 198 (28.8%) provided specimens for hr-HPV testing. Out of twelve positive cases, eleven underwent gynaecological follow-up, identifying six cervical lesions. ConclusionsThe study highlights the potential of self-sampling and HPV testing to enhance CC screening in Portugal, with encouraging acceptance and effective detection of cervical lesions. These findings offer a promising solution for addressing under-screening among eligible women in the decentralized health regions of Portugal.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.