Sociodemographic characteristics associated with cervical cancer screening participation by send‐to‐all and opt‐in HPV self‐sampling: Who benefits? Results from a randomized controlled trial among long‐term non‐attending women in Norway
Bo T. Hansen,Mari Nygård,Phil E. Castle,Emily A. Burger,Gunvor Aasbø
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.34989
2024-05-17
International Journal of Cancer
Abstract:What's new? Offering vaginal self‐sampling as a modality for human papillomavirus testing may overcome barriers to cervical cancer screening and increase participation among under‐screened women. However, whether uptake of this new screening intervention may lead to health inequalities remains unclear. Using trial data from women who had not attended cervical screening for ≥10 years, the authors show that self‐sampling increases screening participation across all sociodemographic groups. However, women from high‐income countries and women of high socioeconomic status showed the highest participation increases. Inequalities in participation should be considered when introducing self‐sampling, especially with the goal of reaching long‐term non‐attending women. With the objective to investigate associations between sociodemographic characteristics and participation in interventions designed to increase participation in cervical cancer screening among under‐screened women, we randomized a random sample of 6000 women in Norway aged 35–69 years who had not attended cervical screening for ≥10 years to receive either (i) a reminder to attend regular screening (control), (ii) an offer to order a self‐sampling kit (opt‐in), or (iii) a self‐sampling kit unsolicited (send‐to‐all). We analyzed how sociodemographic characteristics were associated with screening participation within and between screening arms. In the send‐to‐all arm, increased screening participation ranged from 17.1% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 10.3% to 23.8%) to 30.0% (95% CI = 21.5% to 38.6%) between sociodemographic groups. In the opt‐in arm, we observed smaller, and at times, non‐significant increases within the range 0.7% (95% CI = −5.8% to 7.3%) to 19.1% (95% CI = 11.6% to 26.7%). In send‐to‐all versus control comparisons, there was greater increase in participation for women in the workforce versus not (6.1%, 95% CI = 1.6% to 10.6%), with higher versus lower income (7.6%, 95% CI = 2.2% to 13.1%), and with university versus primary education (8.5%, 95% CI = 2.4% to 14.6%). In opt‐in versus control comparisons, there was greater increase in participation for women in the workforce versus not (4.6%, 95% CI = 0.7% to 8.5%), with higher versus lower income (6.3%, 95% CI = 1.5% to 11.1%), but lower increase for Eastern European versus Norwegian background (−12.7%, 95% CI = −19.7% to −5.7%). Self‐sampling increased cervical screening participation across all sociodemographic levels, but inequalities in participation should be considered when introducing self‐sampling, especially with the goal to reach long‐term non‐attending women.
oncology