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.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 6%
22.9%
2
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.3%
3
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
4
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
5
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.2%
7
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.2%
8
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 24%
3.6%
9
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
10
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
11
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
12
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
13
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
14
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
15
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
16
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
17
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
18
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
19
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
20
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
21
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
23
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
24
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
26
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
27
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%