<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stefanie Costa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bo Verberckmoes</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philip E Castle</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">M. Arbyn</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Offering HPV self-sampling kits: an updated meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies to increase participation in cervical cancer screening</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">British Journal of Cancer</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cervical cancer screening</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">HPV</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">SCREENING</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">self-sampling</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">self-sampling kits</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">14/12/2022</style></date></pub-dates></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong style=&quot;color:#69aa41;&quot;&gt;BACKGROUND:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-samples represents a great opportunity to increase cervical cancer screening uptake among under-screened women.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong style=&quot;color:#69aa41;&quot;&gt;METHODS:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
A systematic review and meta-analysis on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were performed to update the evidence on the efficacy of strategies for offering self-sampling kits for HPV testing compared to conventional invitations and to compare different self-sampling invitation scenarios. Four experimental invitational scenarios were considered. Women in the control group were invited for screening according to existing practice: collection of a cervical specimen by a healthcare professional. Random-effects models were used to pool proportions, relative participation rates and absolute participation differences.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong style=&quot;color:#69aa41;&quot;&gt;RESULTS:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Thirty-three trials were included. In the intention-to-treat analysis, all self-sampling invitation scenarios were more effective in reaching under-screened women compared to controls. Pooled participation difference (PD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for experimental vs. control was 13.2% (95% CI = 11.0–15.3%) for mail-to-all, 4.4% (95% CI = 1.2–7.6%) for opt-in, 39.1% (95% CI = 8.4–69.9%) for community mobilisation &amp;amp; outreach and 28.1% (23.5–32.7%) for offer at healthcare service. PD for the comparison opt-in vs. mail-to-all, assessed in nine trials, was −8.2% (95% CI = −10.8 to −5.7%).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong style=&quot;color:#69aa41;&quot;&gt;DISCUSSION:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Overall, screening participation was higher among women invited for self-sampling compared to control, regardless of the invitation strategy used. Opt-in strategies were less effective than send-to-all strategies.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record></records></xml>