↓ Skip to main content

Human papillomavirus self-sampling for screening nonattenders: Opt-in pilot implementation with electronic communication platforms

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Cancer, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Human papillomavirus self-sampling for screening nonattenders: Opt-in pilot implementation with electronic communication platforms
Published in
International Journal of Cancer, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/ijc.30647
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janni Uyen Hoa Lam, Matejka Rebolj, Ditte Møller Ejegod, Helle Pedersen, Carsten Rygaard, Elsebeth Lynge, Louise Thirstrup Thomsen, Susanne Krüger Kjaer, Jesper Bonde

Abstract

In organized cervical screening programs, typically 25% of the invited women do not attend. The Copenhagen Self-sampling Initiative (CSi) aimed to gain experiences on participation among screening non-attenders in the Capital Region of Denmark. Here, we report on the effectiveness of different communication platforms used in the pilot with suggestions for strategies prior to a full-implementation. Moreover, an innovative approach using self-sampling brushes with unique radio frequency identification chips allowed for unprecedented levels patient identification safety. Non-attenders from the Capital Region of Denmark were identified via the organized national invitation module. Screening history was obtained via the nationwide pathology registry. 24,000 women were invited, and as an alternative to the regular communication platforms (letter and phone), women could request a home test via a mobile-friendly webpage. Instruction material and video-animation in several languages were made available online. Chi-square test was used to test differences. Out of all invited, 31.7% requested a home test, and 20.4% returned it to the laboratory. In addition, 9.7% were screened at the physician after receiving the invitation. Stratified by screening history, long-term unscreened women were less likely to participate than intermittently screened women (28% vs 16%, p<0.001). Of all contacts received, 63.7% (62.7-64.6) came via letter, and 31.2% (30.2-32.2) via webpage/mobile-app. Self-sampling was well-accepted among non-attenders. Adopting modern technology-based platforms into the current organized screening program would serve as a convenient communication method between health authority and citizens, allowing easy access for the citizen and reducing the work load in administrating self-sampling approaches. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 26 35%
Researcher 8 11%
Lecturer 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 29 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 11 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,149,694
of 12,177,359 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Cancer
#6,674
of 8,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,664
of 263,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Cancer
#34
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,177,359 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.