Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ HAL Université de To...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Journal of Women s Health
Article . 2022 . Peer-reviewed
License: Mary Ann Liebert TDM
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

A Home-Mailed Versus General Practitioner-Delivered Vaginal Self-Sampling Kit for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial with a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Authors: Boyard, Julie; Caille, Agnès; Brunet-Houdard, Solène; Sengchanh-Vidal, Somany; Giraudeau, Bruno; Marret, Henri; Rolland-Lozachmeur, Ghislaine; +3 Authors

A Home-Mailed Versus General Practitioner-Delivered Vaginal Self-Sampling Kit for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial with a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Abstract

Objective: We assessed whether general practitioner (GP) delivery of a vaginal self-sampling kit was non-inferior to home-mailed delivery on cervical cancer screening (CCS) participation. Methods: Two hundred and ten French GPs from Indre-et-Loire French department were randomized into two groups, and their unscreened women patients aged 30-65 were included in February-March 2015. In the GP delivery group (n = 105 GPs; 1,806 women), women were sent a reminder letter inviting them to collect a vaginal self-sampling kit at their regular GP's practice. In the home-mailed delivery group (n = 105 GPs; 1,806 women), women were sent a reminder letter with a vaginal self-sampling kit directly at home. The primary outcome was participation in complete CCS within 9 months. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed. Results: At 9 months, 14.9% (95% CI: 12.9-16.9) and 27.9% (95% CI: 25.7-30.0) of women in the GP and home-mailed delivery groups participated in complete CCS. The absolute between-group difference was -13.0 percentage points (95% CI: -15.9 to -10.0) in favor of the home-mailed delivery group, crossing the non-inferiority pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 5%. The home-mailed delivery strategy cost 50.81€ more per additional woman screened. Conclusions: The GP delivery was inferior to home-mailed delivery in increasing participation in CCS. Home-mailed delivery of a vaginal self-sampling kit is a cost-effective way to increase CCS in that the additional cost of this strategy seems acceptable. This study is registered at www.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02255084.

Keywords

HPV, MESH: Vaginal Smears, [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio], Cost-Benefit Analysis, cervical cancer screening, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, MESH: Papillomavirus Infections, Specimen Handling, 618, MESH: Papillomaviridae, General Practitioners, MESH: Early Detection of Cancer, Humans, Mass Screening, MESH: Mass Screening, MESH: Specimen Handling, Papillomaviridae, Early Detection of Cancer, Vaginal Smears, MESH: Humans, unscreened women, Papillomavirus Infections, self-sampling, 600, MESH: General Practitioners, MESH: Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, [SDV] Life Sciences [q-bio], general practitioner, Female, delivery, MESH: Female, MESH: Cost-Benefit Analysis

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research