Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Cancer Causes & Control
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control 3/2010

01-03-2010 | Original paper

Assessing the acceptability of self-sampling for HPV among Haitian immigrant women: CBPR in action

Authors: Lindley Barbee, Erin Kobetz, Janelle Menard, Nicole Cook, Jenny Blanco, Betsy Barton, Pascale Auguste, Nathalie McKenzie

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 3/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To determine whether pairing self-sampling for HPV with community health workers (CHWs) is a culturally acceptable method for cervical cancer screening among Haitian immigrant women residing in Little Haiti, the predominately Haitian neighborhood in Miami, FL.

Methods

As part of a larger, ongoing community-based participatory research (CBPR) initiative in Little Haiti, Haitian CHWs recruited 246 eligible women to this study. Participants provided self-collected cervical specimens for HPV testing and answered a series of questions about their experience with self-sampling for HPV.

Results

The vast majority of women (97.6%) was comfortable using the self-sampler at home, would recommend this screening method to their friends and/or family members (98.4%), and described the sampler as easy to use (95.1%). Additionally, 97% of all self-collected specimens were deemed adequate for HPV testing.

Conclusions

When paired with CHWs, who are of Haitian descent and well respected in Little Haiti, self-sampling is a highly acceptable method of cervical screening for Haitian women in this ethnic enclave. This approach addresses critical access barriers, including poverty, language difficulties, and sociocultural concerns about modesty, that may similarly affect Pap smear utilization among other immigrant or medically underserved population sub-groups. Coupled with generally positive reviews of the device, the low rate of insufficient specimens for testing suggests that this device is promising for use in non-clinical settings.
Literature
1.
Sanghavi Goel M, Wee CC, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, Ngo-Metzger Q, Phillips RS (2003) Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer screening: the importance of foreign birth as a barrier to care. J Gen Intern Med 18:1028–1035CrossRef
2.
de Alba I, Hubbell FA, McMullin JM, Weningson JM, Saitz R (2005) Impact of U.S. citizenship status on cancer screening among immigrant women. J Gen Internal Med 20(3):290–296CrossRef
3.
Hiatt R, Pasick R, Stewart S, Bloom J, Davis P, Gardiner P et al (2001) Community-based cancer screening for underserved women: design and baseline findings from the Breast and Cervical Cancer Intervention Study. Prev Med 33(3):190–203CrossRefPubMed
4.
Freeman HP, Wingrove BK (2005) Excess cervical cancer mortality: a marker for low access to health care in poor communities. Rockville, MD: National Cancer Institute, Center to reduce cancer health disparities, May 2005. NIH Pub. No. 05-5282
5.
6.
7.
Green EH, Freund KM, Posner MM, David MM (2005) Pap smear rates among Haitian immigrant women in eastern Massachussetts. Public Health Rep 120:133–139PubMed
8.
Fruchter RG, Remy JC, Burnett WS, Boyce JG (1986) Cervical cancer in immigrant Caribbean women. Am J Public Health 76(7):797–799CrossRefPubMed
9.
Kobetz E, Menard J, Barton B, Pierre L, Diem J, Denize Auguste P (2009) Patne en Akyson: addressing cancer disparities in little haiti through research and social action. Am J Public Health 99(7):1163–1165CrossRefPubMed
10.
ACOG (2003) Cervical cytology screening. ACOG Practice Bull No 45 102:417–427
11.
Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, Moscicki A-B, Smith RA, Eyre HJ et al (2002) American cancer society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA A Cancer J Clin 52:342–362CrossRef
12.
13.
Zéphir F (2004) The Haitian Americans. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press
14.
15.
Marmot M, Wilkinson R (eds) (2003) Social determinants of health: the solid facts, 2nd edn. World Health Organization, Copenhagen
16.
Lindau ST, Tomori C, Lyons T, Langseth L, Bennett CL, Garcia P (2002) The association of health literacy with cervical cancer prevention knowledge and health behaviors in a multiethnic cohort of women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186(5):938–943CrossRefPubMed
17.
Committee on Health Literacy (2004) Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. In: Nielsen-bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA (eds) National Academies Press, Washington, DC
18.
Freeman H (2004) Poverty, culture, and social injustice: determinants of cancer disparities. CA A Cancer J Clin 54:72–77CrossRef
19.
Adler N, Ostrove J (1999) Socioeconomic status and health: what we know and what we don’t. Ann N Y Acad Sci 896:3–15CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Saint-Jean G, Crandall LA (2005) Sources and barriers to health care coverage for Haitian immigrants in Miami-Dade County, Florida. J Health Care Poor Underserved 16:29–41CrossRefPubMed
22.
Laguerre M (1984) American odyssey: Haitians in New York City. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY
23.
Miller NL (2000) Haitian ethnomedical systems and biomedical practitioners: directions for clinicians. J Transcult Nurs 11(3):204–211CrossRefPubMed
24.
Brodwin PE (1996) Medicine and morality in Haiti: the contest for healing power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
25.
Singer M, Davison L, Gerdes G (1988) Culture, critical theory, and reproductive illness behavior in haiti. Med Anthropol Q 2(4):370–385CrossRef
26.
Menard J (2008) The social context of cervical cancer knowledge and prevention among Haitian immigrant women. University of South Florida, Tampa
27.
28.
Farmer P (1992) AIDS and accusation: Haiti and the geography of blame. University of California Press, Berkeley
29.
Colin J, Paperwalla G (1996) Haitians. In: Lipson JG, Dibble SL (eds) Culture and nursing care: a pocket guide. UCSF Nursing Press, San Francisco, pp 139–54
30.
Castle P, Aftab A, Saint-Jean G, Mendez L (2006) Detection of carcinogenic human papillomavirus in specimens collected with a novel self-sampling device. J Clin Microbiol 44(6):2158–2159CrossRefPubMed
31.
Minkler M, Wallerstein N (2003) Community-based participatory research for health. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA
32.
Israel B, Schulz A, Parker E, Becker A, Allen A, Guzman R (2003) Critical issues in developing and following community based research principles. Jossey-Bass, San Franciso, CA
33.
Edgren K, Parker E, Israel B, Lewis T, Salinas M, Robins T et al (2005) Community involvement in the conduct of a health education intervention and research project: community action against asthma. Health Promo Pract 6:263–269CrossRef
34.
Dzuba I, Díaz EY, Allen B, Leonard YF, Lazcano Ponce EC, Shah KV et al (2002) The acceptability of self-collected samples for HPV testing vs. the Pap test as alternatives in cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 11(3):265–275CrossRefPubMed
35.
Knesel B, Dry J, Wald-Scott C (2005) Preliminary evaluation of a cervical self-sampling device with liquid-based cytology and multiparameter molecular testing. J Reprod Med 50:256–260PubMed
36.
Nobbenhuis M, Helmerhorst T, van den Brule A, Rozendaal L, Jaspars L, Voorhorst F et al (2002) Primary screening for high risk HPV by home obtained cervicovaginal lavage is an alternative screening tool for unscreened women. J Clin Pathol 55:435–439PubMed
37.
Denny L, Kuhn L, De Souza M, Pollack A, Dupree W, Wright TJ (2005) Screen-and-treat approaches for cervical cancer prevention in low-resource settings: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 294(17):2173–2181CrossRefPubMed
38.
Fairley C, Chen S, Tabrizi S, Quinn M, McNeil J, Garland S (1992) Tampons: a novel patient-administered method for the assessment of genital human papillomavirus infection. J Infect Dis 165:1103–1106PubMed
39.
Kahn J, Slap G, Huang B, Rosenthal S, Wanchick A, Kollar L et al (2004) Comparison of adolescent and young adult self-collected and clinician-collected samples for human papillomavirus. Obstet Gynecol 103(5):952–959PubMed
40.
Serwadda D, Wawer M, Shah K, Sweankambo N, Daniel R, Lorincz A et al (1999) Use of a hybrid capture assay of self-collected vaginal swabs in rural Uganda for detection of human papillomavirus. J Infect Dis 180:1316–1319CrossRefPubMed
41.
Hillemanns P, Kimmig R, Huttermann U, Dannecker C, Thaler C (1999) Screening for cervical neoplasia by self-assessment for human papillomavirus DNA [letter]. Lancet 354:1970CrossRefPubMed
42.
Wright T, Denny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Lorincz A (2000) HPV DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples compared with cytologic screening to detect cervical cancer. JAMA 283(1):81–86CrossRefPubMed
43.
Moscicki A (1993) Comparison between methods for human papillomavirus DNA testing: a model for self-testing in young women. J Infect Dis 167:723–725PubMed
44.
Harper D, Hildesheim A, Cobb J, Greenberg M, Vaught J, Lorincz A (1999) Collection devices for human papillomavirus. J Fam Pract 48:531–535PubMed
45.
Agorastos T, Dinas K, Lloveras B, Font R, Kornegary J, Bontis J et al (2005) Self-sampling versus physician-sampling for human papillomavirus testing. Int J STDS AIDS 16:727–729CrossRef
46.
de Alba I, Anton-Culver H, Hubbell FA, Ziogas A, Hess JR, Bracho A et al (2008) Self-sampling for human papillomavirus in a community setting: feasibility in Hispanic women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 17(8):2163–2168CrossRefPubMed
47.
Pengsaa P, Sriamporn S, Kritpetcharat O, Kamsa-Ard S, Suwanrungruang K, Noda S et al (2003) A comparison of cytology with Pap smears taken by a gynecologist and with a self-sampling device. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 4(2):99–102PubMed
48.
Longatto-Filho A, Roteli-Martins C, Hammes L, Etlinger D, Pereira S, Erzen M et al (2008) Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as cervical cancer screening option. Experience from the LAMS study. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 29(4):327–332PubMed
49.
Karwalajtys T, Howard M, Sellors J, Kaczorowski J (2006) Vaginal self sampling versus physician cervical sampling for HPV among younger and older women. Sex Transm Infect 82(4):337–339CrossRefPubMed
50.
Bais A, van Kemenade F, Berkhof J, Verheijen R, Snijders P, Voorhorst F et al (2007) Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: an effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical screening programs. Int J Cancer 120(7):1505–1510CrossRefPubMed
51.
Barata P, Mai V, Howlett R, Gagliardi A, Stewart D (2008) Discussions about self-obtained samples for HPV testing as an alternative for cervical cancer prevention. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 8:1–7
52.
Boskey E, Atherly-Trim S, O’Campo P, Strobino D, Misra D (2004) Acceptability of a self-sampling technique to collect vaginal smears for gram stain diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Women’s Health Issues 14(1):14–18CrossRefPubMed
53.
Budge M, Halford J, Haran M, Mein J, Wright G (2005) Comparison of a self-administered tampon ThinPrep test with conventional pap smears for cervical cytology. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 45(3):215–219CrossRefPubMed
54.
Castle PE, Aftab A, Saint-Jean G, Mendez L (2006) Detection of carcinogenic human papillomavirus in specimens collected with a novel self-sampling device. J Clin Microbiol 44(6):2158–2159CrossRefPubMed
55.
Daponte A, Pournaras S, Mademtzis I, Hadjichristodoulou C, Kostopoulou E, Maniatis A et al (2006) Evaluation of HPV 16 PCR detection in self- compared with clinician-collected samples in women referred for colposcopy. Gynecol Oncol 103(2):463–466CrossRefPubMed
56.
Harper D, Noll W, Belloni D, Cole B (2002) Randomized clinical trial of PCR-determined human papillomavirus detection methods: self-sampling versus clinician-directed—biologic concordance and women’s preferences. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186(3):365–373CrossRefPubMed
57.
Knesel BW, Dry JC, Wald-Scott C, Aftoh A (2005) Preliminary evaluation of a cervical self-sampling device with liquid-based cytology and multiparameter molecular testing. J Reprod Med 50(4):256–260PubMed
58.
Blake DR, Maldeis N, Barnes MR, Hardick A, Quinn TC, Gaydos CA (2008) Cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for Chlamydia trachomatis using cervical swabs, urine, and self-obtained vaginal swabs in a sexually transmitted disease clinic setting. Sex Transm Dis 35(7):649–655CrossRefPubMed
59.
Chandeying V, Garland S, Tabrizi S (2006) Prevalence and typing of human papilloma virus (HPV) among female sex workers and outpatient women in southern Thailand. Sexual Health 3(1):11–14CrossRefPubMed
60.
Chernesky M, Hook E, Martin D, Lane J, Johnson R, Jordan J et al (2005) Women find it easy and prefer to collect their own vaginal swabs to diagnose Chlamydia trachomatis or Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections. Sex Transm Dis 32(12):729–733CrossRefPubMed
61.
Saint-Jean G, Crandall LA (2005) Utilization of preventive care by Haitian immigrants in Miami, Florida. J Immigr Health 7(4):283–292CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Assessing the acceptability of self-sampling for HPV among Haitian immigrant women: CBPR in action
Authors
Lindley Barbee
Erin Kobetz
Janelle Menard
Nicole Cook
Jenny Blanco
Betsy Barton
Pascale Auguste
Nathalie McKenzie
Publication date
01-03-2010
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 3/2010
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-009-9474-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2010

Cancer Causes & Control 3/2010 Go to the issue

Original paper

Inverse association between serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels and non-melanoma skin cancer in elderly men

Original paper

Blood pressure and risk of prostate cancer: cohort Norway (CONOR)

Original paper

Timeliness and follow-up patterns of cervical cancer detection in a cohort of medically underserved California women

Original paper

Prospective studies of dietary alpha-linolenic acid intake and prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis

Original paper

Human papillomavirus infection in women with and without cervical cancer in Nepal

Original paper

Breastfeeding reduces breast cancer risk: a case–control study in Tunisia
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits