Efficacy of self-sampling in promoting participation to cervical cancer screening also in subsequent round

Annarosa Del Mistro, Helena Frayle, Antonio Ferro, Gianpiero Fantin, Emma Altobelli, Paolo Giorgi Rossi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Offering self-sampling devices improves participation of under-screened women. We evaluated participation in routine screening following the self-sampling intervention in two organized population-based screening programmes located in North-East Italy. Data on participation at 3-years-interval after a randomized clinical trial assessing the response to two strategies offering self-samplers (sent at home or offered free at local pharmacy) with a control action (sending reminders for a cervical specimen taken at the clinic) in 30–64 yr-old women non-respondent to the regular call-recall invitation were analyzed. Up to April 2016, 2300 women out of the 2995 recruited in the trial in 2011 were re-invited to perform a screening test at clinic; overall, 698 women adhered. Participation was similar in the three arms (29–32%), and highest (47–68%) among those who participated in the previous round. Over the two rounds, 44.6%, 32.3% and 30.3% women had at least one test in the self-sampling at home, self-sampling at pharmacy and test at the clinic arms, respectively. Our data indicate that the beneficial effect of offering self-sampling devices to nonparticipating women is maintained over time. Self-samplers are useful to increase overall coverage; their sporadic use does not seem to increase the proportion of women regularly repeating the test.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)166-168
Number of pages3
JournalPreventive Medicine Reports
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - Dec 23 2016


  • Cervical cancer
  • HPV test
  • Participation
  • Screening
  • Self-sampling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Informatics
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health


Dive into the research topics of 'Efficacy of self-sampling in promoting participation to cervical cancer screening also in subsequent round'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this