METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a population based randomized control trial. Women aged 20-65 years in the population that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria were re-called for a repeat smear. There are four different intervention groups; letter, registered letters, short messages services (SMS) and phone calls where 250 subjects were recruited into each group. Samples were generated randomly from the same population in Klang into four different groups. The first group received a recall letter for a repeat smear similar to the one that has been given during the first invitation. The intervention groups were either be given a registered letter, an SMS or a phone call to re-call them. The socio-demographic data of the patients who came for uptake were collected for further analysis. All the groups were followed up after 8 weeks to assess their compliance to the recall.
CONCLUSIONS: The study will provide recommendations about the most effective methods for recall in a population based pap smear screening program on two outcomes: i) patients response; ii) uptake for repeat pap smear.
OBJECTIVE: We determined the agreement of cytological diagnoses made on samples collected by women themselves (selfsampling) versus samples collected by physicians (Physician sampling).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We invited women volunteers to undergo two procedures; cervical selfsampling using the Evalyn brush and physician sampling using a Cervex brush. The women were shown a video presentation on how to take their own cervical samples before the procedure. The samples taken by physicians were taken as per routine testing (Gold Standard). All samples were subjected to Thin Prep monolayer smears. The diagnoses made were according to the Bethesda classification. The results from these two sampling methods were analysed and compared.
RESULTS: A total of 367 women were recruited into the study, ranging from 22 to 65 years age. There was a significant good agreement of the cytological diagnoses made on the samples from the two sampling methods with the Kappa value of 0.568 (p=0.040). Using the cytological smears taken by physicians as the gold standard, the sensitivity of selfsampling was 71.9% (95% CI:70.972.8), the specificity was 86.6% (95% CI:85.7 87.5), the positive predictive value was 74.2% (95% CI:73.375.1) and the negative predictive value was 85.1% (95% CI: 84.286.0). Selfsampling smears (22.9%) allowed detection of microorganisms better than physicians samples (18.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that samples taken by women themselves (selfsampling) and physicians have good diagnostic agreement. Selfsampling could be the method of choice in countries in which the coverage of women attending clinics for screening for cervical cancer is poor.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cervical scrapings were collected from women attending clinics for routine Pap smear screening. HPV-DNA was detected by PCR using MY09/11 and GP5+/GP6+ primer sets and genotyping was accomplished by cycle-sequencing.
RESULTS: A total of 635 women were recruited into the study with mean ± SD age of 43 ± 10.5 years. Of these 92.6% (588/635) were reported as within normal limits (WNL) on cytology. The presence of HPV infection detected by nested MY/GP+-PCR was 4.4% (28/635). The overall prevalence of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) in abnormal Pap smears was 53.8% (7/13). HPVs were also seen in 3.1% (18/588) of smears reported as WNL by cytology and 5.9% (2/34) in smears unsatisfactory for evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall percentage of HPV positivity in routine cervical screening samples is comparable with abnormal findings in cytology. Conventional Pap smear 'missed' a few samples. Since HPV testing is expensive, our results may provide valuable information for strategising implementation of effective cervical cancer screening in a country with limited resources like Malaysia. If Pap smear coverage could be improved, HPV testing could be used as an adjunct method on cases with ambiguous diagnoses.
METHODS: A cross sectional study was performed in three randomly selected centres that organised pre-marital courses. All Malay Muslim women participants aged 18 to 40 years old were recruited while non-Malaysian, illiterate, and had hysterectomy were excluded. Validated self-administered questionnaires used were European Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q16 Malay) and Knowledge and attitude towards Cervical Cancer and Pap Smear Questionnaire. The mean percentage score (mean± SD) was calculated, with higher scores showed better outcomes. Multiple linear regression was used to measure the relationship of independent variables with attitude towards Pap smear.
RESULTS: A total of 417 participants were recruited with a mean age of 24.9 ± 3.56 years old. Prevalence of awareness of cervical cancer was 91.6% (n=382, 95% CI: 89.0%, 94.2%) and mean percentage score was 74.7%±7.6. Prevalence of awareness of Pap smear was 59.0% (n=246, 95% CI: 54.2%, 63.8%) and mean percentage score was 80.2% ± 6.5. The health literacy mean score was 13.3±3.6, with minimum score 0 and maximum score 16. The mean percentage score of attitudes towards Pap smear was 64.8%±9.3. Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated significant relationship between health literacy (p=0.047) and knowledge of Pap smear (p<0.001) with attitude towards Pap smear.
CONCLUSION: A higher health literacy with high knowledge of Pap smear improves the attitude towards Pap smear. Pre-marital course is an opportunistic platform to disseminate information to improve health literacy and knowledge of cervical cancer and Pap smear screening.