Back

Perceptions of HPV Self-Collection for Cervical Cancer Screening Among Mobile Health Program Attendees

Tovar, A.; Person-Rennell, N.; Coronado, G.; Madhivanan, P.; Soto, S.; Escheman, H.; Morenz, A. M.

2026-05-04 primary care research
10.64898/2026.05.01.26352235 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundMobile health programs (MHPs) provide essential preventive services to uninsured and underserved communities. Following the 2024 regulatory approval of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-collection for cervical cancer screening, MHPs represent an access point for healthcare-based self-collection. However, little is known about patient perceptions of this approach in MHP and other healthcare settings. MethodsFrom May - August 2025, we surveyed individuals aged 25-65 years with a cervix who attended MHPs in Southern Arizona. The survey assessed interest in HPV self-collection, preferred locations, instructional preferences, and facilitators to attend follow-up after a positive result. Descriptive statistics summarized demographic characteristics and survey responses. ResultsFifteen female participants completed the survey (mean age 36 years). Ten (67%) identified as Hispanic or Latino, nine (60%) preferred Spanish, and 14 (93%) were uninsured. Interest in HPV self-collection was high, with ten (67%) very or extremely interested. Among those interested, nine (69%) preferred home-based self-collection, and four (31%) preferred clinic or MHP-based self-collection. Most common concerns regarding self-collection on the MHP were ensuring privacy (n=7; 47%) and knowing how to perform the test correctly (n=5; 33%). Most participants (n=11; 73%) reported being very or extremely confident they would attend follow-up after a positive result; language-concordant support, reminder calls, and scheduling assistance were the most endorsed facilitators. ConclusionHPV self-collection was highly acceptable among MHP attendees, although home-based self-collection was most preferred. Addressing privacy concerns, providing multiple modes of instruction, and offering navigation support may improve implementation success and ensure timely follow-up care in MHP settings.

Matching journals

The top 5 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.