Assessing women's willingness to collect their own cervical samples for HPV testing as part of the ASPIRE cervical cancer screening project in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess women's willingness to collect their own samples for HPV testing as the first part of a screening program for cervical cancer in Uganda. METHODS: In March and April 2010, trained assistants from Kisenyi interviewed 300 women aged 30 to 65 years who lived and/or worked in this community. Descriptive data and multivariate modeling were used to identify the predictors of the women's willingness to collect their own cervical samples. RESULTS: More than 80% of the 300 participants were willing to collect their own samples. In multivariate modeling, factors positively associated with this willingness were agreement to let outreach workers deliver the necessary swab at their homes (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83-9.18) and willingness to undergo a pelvic examination if the sample was abnormal (AOR, 3.91; 95% CI,1.03-14.90). Factors negatively associated were embarrassment at collecting the sample at home where they lacked privacy (AOR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.03-0.29) and concern of not collecting the sample properly (AOR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.05-0.3). CONCLUSION: Self-collection is an option in impoverished settings in Africa. To improve acceptability, women should be taught how to properly collect their own cervical sample and encouraged to find ways to make the collection less embarrassing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".