Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Meeting ReportScreening, prevention, and health promotion

Self-Sampling Tools for Cancer Screening in Primary Care: Evidence from a Randomized Trial with Underserved Patients

Jennifer Moss, Paul Reiter, Lisa Klesges and Tracy Onega
The Annals of Family Medicine January 2023, 21 (Supplement 1) 3954; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.21.s1.3954
Jennifer Moss
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Reiter
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lisa Klesges
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tracy Onega
PA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Context. Implementation of routine screening for cervical cancer and colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal. Primary care is an ideal venue for disseminating self-sampling screening tools, allowing patients to collect a sample at home and send it to a lab for testing. These tools can increase population-level cancer screening and reduce cancer disparities.

Objective. Assess the preliminary outcomes and acceptability of an intervention “package” to increase cancer screening using self-sampling tools among underserved patients. This package includes a novel tool (i.e., HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening) and a more established tool (i.e., fecal immunochemical test [FIT] for CRC screening).

Study Design and Analysis. Pilot randomized controlled trial, with telephone-administered surveys at baseline and 10-weeks follow-up. We used Fisher’s exact tests to assess differences in outcome measures by study arm.

Setting. Federally-qualified health centers in rural and racially-segregated counties in Pennsylvania.

Population Studied. Average-risk, female patients, ages 50-65, who were eligible but out-of-date with both cervical cancer screening and CRC screening (n=48).

Intervention. Participants in the intervention arm received an intervention package providing educational materials and self-sampling tools for cervical and CRC screening. Participants in the standard of care arm received a reminder to schedule cancer screening.

Outcome Measures. The primary outcomes were self-reported receipt of screening for cervical cancer and for CRC at follow-up. Additional outcomes among participants in the intervention arm were return, results, and acceptability of self-sampling tools.

Results. Cervical cancer screening at follow-up was higher for the intervention vs. standard of care arm (89% vs. 11%, p<.001). CRC screening was also higher for the intervention vs. standard of care arm (89% vs. 11%, p<.001). Among intervention participants, 71% returned both self-sampling tools, and of those, 18% had abnormal results on cervical cancer screening, and 24% had abnormal results on CRC screening. Acceptability of self-sampling tools was very high.

Conclusions. A bundled package of self-sampling tools improved screening for cervical cancer and CRC and was acceptable for among underserved patients in primary care. These tools have the potential to increase screening and reduce disparities in cancer outcomes.

  • © 2023 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.
Previous
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 21 (Supplement 1)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 21 (Supplement 1)
Vol. 21, Issue Supplement 1
1 Jan 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Self-Sampling Tools for Cancer Screening in Primary Care: Evidence from a Randomized Trial with Underserved Patients
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
8 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Self-Sampling Tools for Cancer Screening in Primary Care: Evidence from a Randomized Trial with Underserved Patients
Jennifer Moss, Paul Reiter, Lisa Klesges, Tracy Onega
The Annals of Family Medicine Jan 2023, 21 (Supplement 1) 3954; DOI: 10.1370/afm.21.s1.3954

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Self-Sampling Tools for Cancer Screening in Primary Care: Evidence from a Randomized Trial with Underserved Patients
Jennifer Moss, Paul Reiter, Lisa Klesges, Tracy Onega
The Annals of Family Medicine Jan 2023, 21 (Supplement 1) 3954; DOI: 10.1370/afm.21.s1.3954
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Cervical Cancer Screening Differences Between Black and White Women: An Examination of HPV and Pap Test Utilization.
  • Understanding the Relationship Between Social Needs and Cervical Cancer Screening
  • Accelerated biological aging leads to the trajectory of cardiometabolic multimorbidity to dementia and mortality
Show more Screening, prevention, and health promotion

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine