Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Direct mailing of HPV self-sampling kits to women aged 50-65 non-participating in cervical screening in the Czech Republic

O. Ngo, R. Chloupková, D. Cibula, J. Sláma, L. Mandelová, K. Hejduk, M. Hajdúch, P. Minka, V. Koudeláková, H. Jaworek, M. Trnková, P. Vaněk, V. Dvořák, L. Dušek, O. Májek

. 2024 ; 34 (2) : 361-367. [pub] 20240403

Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Journal Article

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24014378

Grant support
European Union
CZ.03.2.63/0.0/0.0/15_039/0008171 European Social Fund, Operation Programme Employment
CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_013/0001818 EATRIS-CZ

BACKGROUND: A population-based cervical cancer screening programme is implemented in the Czech Republic. However, participation is insufficient among women over 50 years. This study aimed to estimate the potential improvement in participation through directly mailed HPV self-sampling kits (HPVssk) compared with standard invitation letters in women aged 50-65 non-participating in screening. METHODS: The study recruited 1564 eligible women (no cervical cancer screening in the last 3 years or more, no previous treatment associated with cervical lesions or cervical cancer). Eight hundred women were mailed with an HPVssk (HPVssk group), and 764 women were sent a standard invitation letter (control group) inviting them to a routine screening (Pap test). The primary outcome was a comparison of the overall participation rate between study groups using a binominal regression model. RESULTS: The participation rate in the HPVssk group was 13.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.2-15.9%; 7.4% of women returned the HPVssk and 6.0% attended gynaecological examination] and 5.0% (95% CI 3.6-6.8%) in the control group. Using the binominal regression model, the difference between the groups was estimated as 7.6% (95% CI 5.0-10.2%; P < 0.001). In the HPVssk group, 22% of women who returned HPVssk had a positive result and 70% of them underwent a follow-up examination. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with traditional invitation letters, the direct mailing of the HPVssk achieved a significantly higher participation rate, along with a notable HPV positivity rate among HPVssk responders. This approach offers a potentially viable method for engaging women who have not yet attended a cervical screening programme.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24014378
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240905134044.0
007      
ta
008      
240725s2024 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1093/eurpub/ckad229 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)38224266
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Ngo, Ondřej $u Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Direct mailing of HPV self-sampling kits to women aged 50-65 non-participating in cervical screening in the Czech Republic / $c O. Ngo, R. Chloupková, D. Cibula, J. Sláma, L. Mandelová, K. Hejduk, M. Hajdúch, P. Minka, V. Koudeláková, H. Jaworek, M. Trnková, P. Vaněk, V. Dvořák, L. Dušek, O. Májek
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: A population-based cervical cancer screening programme is implemented in the Czech Republic. However, participation is insufficient among women over 50 years. This study aimed to estimate the potential improvement in participation through directly mailed HPV self-sampling kits (HPVssk) compared with standard invitation letters in women aged 50-65 non-participating in screening. METHODS: The study recruited 1564 eligible women (no cervical cancer screening in the last 3 years or more, no previous treatment associated with cervical lesions or cervical cancer). Eight hundred women were mailed with an HPVssk (HPVssk group), and 764 women were sent a standard invitation letter (control group) inviting them to a routine screening (Pap test). The primary outcome was a comparison of the overall participation rate between study groups using a binominal regression model. RESULTS: The participation rate in the HPVssk group was 13.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.2-15.9%; 7.4% of women returned the HPVssk and 6.0% attended gynaecological examination] and 5.0% (95% CI 3.6-6.8%) in the control group. Using the binominal regression model, the difference between the groups was estimated as 7.6% (95% CI 5.0-10.2%; P < 0.001). In the HPVssk group, 22% of women who returned HPVssk had a positive result and 70% of them underwent a follow-up examination. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with traditional invitation letters, the direct mailing of the HPVssk achieved a significantly higher participation rate, along with a notable HPV positivity rate among HPVssk responders. This approach offers a potentially viable method for engaging women who have not yet attended a cervical screening programme.
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a nádory děložního čípku $x diagnóza $x prevence a kontrola $7 D002583
650    12
$a infekce papilomavirem $x diagnóza $7 D030361
650    _2
$a časná detekce nádoru $x metody $7 D055088
650    _2
$a vaginální stěr $7 D014626
650    _2
$a plošný screening $x metody $7 D008403
651    _2
$a Česká republika $x epidemiologie $7 D018153
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Chloupková, Renata $u Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Cibula, David $u Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, General University Hospital and 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Sláma, Jiří $u Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, General University Hospital and 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Mandelová, Lucie $u Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Hejduk, Karel $u Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Hajdúch, Marián $u Institute of Molecular and Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic $u Laboratory of Experimental Medicine, University Hospital Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Minka, Petr $u RBP, Health Insurance Company, Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Koudeláková, Vladimíra $u Institute of Molecular and Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic $u Laboratory of Experimental Medicine, University Hospital Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Jaworek, Hana $u Institute of Molecular and Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic $u Laboratory of Experimental Medicine, University Hospital Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Trnková, Markéta $u Unilabs Pathology K. S., Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Vaněk, Peter $u Institute of Molecular and Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Dvořák, Vladimír $u Centre of Outpatient Gynaecology and Primary Care, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Dušek, Ladislav $u Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Májek, Ondřej $u Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00012099 $t European journal of public health $x 1464-360X $g Roč. 34, č. 2 (2024), s. 361-367
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38224266 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240725 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240905134038 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2143884 $s 1226244
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 34 $c 2 $d 361-367 $e 20240403 $i 1464-360X $m European journal of public health $n Eur J Public Health $x MED00012099
GRA    __
$p European Union
GRA    __
$a CZ.03.2.63/0.0/0.0/15_039/0008171 $p European Social Fund, Operation Programme Employment
GRA    __
$a CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_013/0001818 $p EATRIS-CZ
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240725
Back

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options