MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401929749 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1430968

HPV self-sampling implementation strategies to engage under screened communities in cervical cancer screening: a scoping review to inform screening programs

2024· review· en· W4401929749 on OpenAlexaff
Madison M. Fullerton, Caitlin Ford, Chelsea D’Silva, Bonnie Chiang, Se-Inyenede Onobrakpor, Holly Dievert, Huiming Yang, Jason Cabaj, Noah Ivers, Sandra Davidson, Jia Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLIndigenousInclusion (mineral)MedicineCervical cancerFamily medicineCommunity engagementMEDLINESampling (signal processing)Rural healthCochrane LibraryRural areaNursingAlternative medicineCancerPsychological interventionPsychologyPathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as a method of cervical cancer screening can be performed by healthcare providers or by patients through self-sampling directly in the community, removing several barriers experienced by under screened populations. The objective of this scoping review was to determine which HPV self-sampling implementation and engagement strategies have been used to engage under screened populations (i.e., Indigenous, newcomer, and rural and remote communities) in cervical cancer screening. Methods A scoping review was conducted searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and SocINDEX from inception to August 2023. The inclusion criteria were: (1) Indigenous, newcomer, and rural and remote communities; (2) countries identified as members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development; and (3) intervention included HPV self-sampling. The review was registered prior to conducting the search ( https://osf.io/zfvp9 ). Results A total of 26 studies out of 2,741 studies met the inclusion criteria. In-person engagement with trusted community leaders was the most widely used and accepted recruitment and engagement strategy across all three populations. Six out of seven studies with Indigenous communities distributed HPV self-sampling kits to eligible participants in person in a clinical setting for collection on site or at home. Similarly, nine of the identified studies that engaged newcomers recruited participants in person through the community, where eligible participants were either given a kit ( n = 7) or received one in the mail ( n = 2). Lastly, of the 10 identified studies engaging rural and remote participants in HPV self-sampling, six recruited eligible participants in person at various community locations and four used electronic medical records or registries to identify and mail kits to participants. Discussion HPV self-sampling through in person kit distribution and mail out of HPV self-sampling kits is an effective way to increase participation rates amongst under screened populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0160.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.368
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207