Self-Collection for Vaginal Human Papillomavirus Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review literature on women's acceptance, preference, willingness, and attitudes toward human papillomavirus DNA vaginal self-sampling and assess study validity using the STROBE statement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From September to October 2008, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases were searched systematically over all years available. Participants were women who either completed vaginal self-sampling or were described the procedure. Studies were required to report women's acceptance, preference, willingness or attitudes toward self-sampling. Two independent reviewers assessed abstracts and articles for inclusion and collected study data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included. Of 8 studies, 7 reported that women found self-sampling acceptable. Of the 13 studies, 8 found that more women (63%-94%) preferred self-sampling to clinician-collected sampling. Most women were also receptive to self-sampling as part of future screening. Common opinions expressed by women included an uncertainty if they had or could perform the self-test properly and greater confidence in clinician sampling. Only 2 studies used questionnaires that had been validated, and selection bias favoring self-sampling could not be ruled out in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal human papillomavirus DNA self-sampling is generally well received among women. However, the possibility of selection bias and survey instrument measurement error may have led to an overestimate of women's favorable opinions for self-sampling. A self-sampling option may increase screening coverage, but concerns of women must also be addressed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".