RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-samples represents a great opportunity to increase cervical cancer screening uptake among under-screened women. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were performed to update the evidence on the efficacy of strategies for offering self-sampling kits for HPV testing compared to conventional invitations and to compare different self-sampling invitation scenarios. Four experimental invitational scenarios were considered. Women in the control group were invited for screening according to existing practice: collection of a cervical specimen by a healthcare professional. Random-effects models were used to pool proportions, relative participation rates and absolute participation differences. RESULTS: Thirty-three trials were included. In the intention-to-treat analysis, all self-sampling invitation scenarios were more effective in reaching under-screened women compared to controls. Pooled participation difference (PD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for experimental vs. control was 13.2% (95% CI = 11.0-15.3%) for mail-to-all, 4.4% (95% CI = 1.2-7.6%) for opt-in, 39.1% (95% CI = 8.4-69.9%) for community mobilisation & outreach and 28.1% (23.5-32.7%) for offer at healthcare service. PD for the comparison opt-in vs. mail-to-all, assessed in nine trials, was -8.2% (95% CI = -10.8 to -5.7%). DISCUSSION: Overall, screening participation was higher among women invited for self-sampling compared to control, regardless of the invitation strategy used. Opt-in strategies were less effective than send-to-all strategies.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Papillomavirus , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino , Femenino , Humanos , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Tamizaje Masivo , Manejo de Especímenes , Papillomaviridae , Frotis Vaginal , AutocuidadoRESUMEN
In 2017, cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands switched from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV) testing using the validated PCR-based cobas 4800. Women could order and subsequently received a free self-sampling kit (Evalyn Brush) at their home address instead of clinician sampling. In the laboratory, the shipped brush was placed into 20 mL of PreservCyt fluid, before testing. In the first 2 years of the new program, only 7% of screening tests were performed on a self-sample. Those who chose self-sampling versus clinician sampling were more likely to have never been screened previously and differed also with respect to sociodemographic factors. Subsequent more active promotion and increasing the ease to obtain kits increased the proportion opting for self-sampling (16% in 2020). HPV positivity and detection rate of precancer (CIN3+) were lower in the self-sampling compared with the clinician-sampling group (adjusted ORs of 0.65 and 0.86, respectively). Although population differences may partially explain these results, self-samples may have been too dilute, thereby reducing the analytic and clinical sensitivity. The Dutch findings demonstrate the importance of optimizing outreach, specimen handling and testing protocols for self-samples to effectively screen the target population and reach in particular the women at highest risk for cervical cancer. See related article by Aitken et al., p. 183.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Papillomavirus , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/diagnóstico , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/virología , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Países Bajos/epidemiología , Infecciones por Papillomavirus/diagnóstico , Infecciones por Papillomavirus/virología , Manejo de Especímenes/métodos , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Papillomaviridae/genéticaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Identify radiographers' postures during frequent mammography procedures related to the mammography equipment and patient characteristics. METHODS: A postural task analysis was performed using images acquired during the simulation of mammography positioning procedures. Simulations included craniocaudal/(CC) and mediolateral-oblique/(MLO) positioning in three different settings: radiographers and patients with similar statures, radiographers smaller than the patients and radiographers taller than the patients. Measurements of postural angles were performed by two raters using adequate software and classified according to the European Standard EN1005-4:2005 + A1:2008. RESULTS: The simulations revealed that the most awkward posture in mammography is during the positioning of MLO projection in short-stature patients. Postures identified as causing work-related musculoskeletal disorder (WRMSD) risk were neck extension, arms elevated and the back stooped, presenting angles of 87.2, 118.6 and 63.6, respectively. If radiographers were taller than patients, then the trunk and arm postures were not acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Working in a mammography room leads to awkward postures that can have an impact on radiographers' health, namely WRMSDs. The results in this study showed that there are non-acceptable postures associated with frequent working procedures in mammography. MLO is the most demanding procedure for radiographer postures and may be related to WRMSDs. Mammography devices should be redesigned considering adjustability for radiographers. MAIN MESSAGES: ⢠Mammography constraints for radiographers in mammography procedures have not been well studied. ⢠Performing mammography leads to awkward postures that can impact radiographers' health. ⢠MLO, the most demanding procedure for radiographers, is possibly related to WRMSDs.