Uptake of community-based, self-collected HPV testing vs. visual inspection with @entity1543 for cervical XXXX screening in Kampala, Uganda: preliminary results of a randomised controlled trial.

@entity5 @entity1 @entity1543 @entity1082
OBJECTIVES: To compare two cervical @entity5 screening methods: community-based self-collection of high-risk @entity1082 (HR-HPV) testing and visual inspection with @entity1543 (VIA). METHODS: Pilot randomised controlled trial of 500 @entity1 aged 30-65 in the community of Kisenyi, Uganda. @entity1 randomised to self-collection-based HR-HPV testing provided a cervico-vaginal swab for HR-HPV, and results were provided by phone after laboratory testing. @entity1 who tested HPV positive were referred for VIA at the local health unit. @entity1 randomised to VIA underwent screening at the local health unit, where @entity1 who tested positive with VIA were provided cryotherapy at time of screening, as per local standard of care. @entity1 were referred for colposcopy when indicated. Outcome measures were uptake of screening, HR-HPV prevalence, VIA result and treatment rates. RESULTS: In the HR-HPV arm, 248 of 250 (p  <  0.01) @entity1 provided samples, while in the VIA arm, 121 of 250 (48.4%) @entity1 attended screening. Among the 73 of 248 HR-HPV-positive @entity1 , 45.2% (N  =  33) attended VIA screening for follow-up, 21.2% (N  =  7) of whom screened positive; five received treatment and two were missing clinical follow-up records. Of the 121 @entity1 in the VIA arm who attended screening, 13.2% (N  =  16) screened positive; seven received cryotherapy, three refused treatment, five were referred to colposcopy; and one @entity1 had suspected cervical @entity5 and received treatment after confirmatory testing. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated trial feasibility and willingness of the @entity1 to participate and be randomised successfully into the two arms. Self-collection-based cervical @entity5 screening had a higher uptake than VIA.
