Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT02005510
NCT02005510CompletedNot Applicable

Randomized Trial of In-Home Cervical Cancer Screening in Underscreened Women

University of Washington2 sites in 1 country19,851 target enrollmentStarted: February 2014Last updated:
Conditions

Trial Snapshot

Phase
Not Applicable
Status
Completed
Enrollment
19,851
Locations
2
Primary Endpoint
Number of Participants That Received Treatment for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 2 or Worse

Study Overview

Brief Summary

The purpose of this trial is to determine whether mailing in-home human papillomavirus (HPV) screening kits is effective in increasing uptake of cervical cancer screening and early detection and treatment of cervical neoplasia in underscreened women.

Detailed Description

Over half of all cervical cancers in the U.S. are diagnosed in unscreened or underscreened women. New national guidelines identify increasing screening uptake as the number one priority for reducing cervical cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Innovative screening strategies that eliminate the need for clinic-based screening could be highly effective in improving screening compliance while maintaining high-quality care. We propose a large, pragmatic randomized controlled trial within Group Health (a large integrated health care delivery system in Washington State) to compare effectiveness of two programmatic approaches to increasing cervical cancer screening among overdue women. The first approach (control arm) is usual care at Group Health, which consists of patient- and provider-level services to promote adherence to Pap screening, and the second approach (intervention arm) includes usual care plus a mailed in-home high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) screening kit. We will randomize eligible women to the in-home hrHPV screening arm or the usual care arm. Compared to usual care, we hypothesize that in-home hrHPV screening will enhance early detection and treatment of cervical neoplasia and improve compliance with screening. The trial will provide definitive evidence-based data on the impact of an in-home hrHPV screening program in a real-world clinical setting.

Study Design

Study Type
Interventional
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention Model
Parallel
Primary Purpose
Screening
Masking
Single (Investigator)

Eligibility Criteria

Ages
30 Years to 64 Years (Adult)
Sex
Female
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No

Inclusion Criteria

  • 30 to 64 years of age
  • Have a primary care provider at Group Health
  • Received annual "birthday letter" with Pap screening reminder 5 months earlier
  • No Pap test in the past 3.4 years
  • Continuously enrolled at Group Health for at least 3.4 years
  • No hysterectomy

Exclusion Criteria

  • Currently pregnant
  • Language interpreter needed
  • On "do not contact list" for research studies

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Number of Participants That Received Treatment for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 2 or Worse

Time Frame: Assessed for up to 18 months post-randomization

Receipt of treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse

Number of Participants Diagnosed With Cervical Epithelial Neoplasia Grade 2 or Worse

Time Frame: Assessed for up to 12 months post-randomization

Histologic diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse

Secondary Outcomes

  • Experiences and Attitudes Associated With Follow-up of Positive In-home HPV Testing Results(Interview invitation mailed after all recommended clinical follow-up complete OR study follow-up window complete, up to 12 months post-randomization)
  • Number of Participants That Completed Uptake of Cervical Cancer Screening(Assessed for up to 6 months post-randomization)
  • Number of Participants With an Abnormal Screening Result(Assessed for up to 6 months post-randomization)
  • Experiences and Attitudes Associated With In-home HPV Testing Uptake(Survey invitation mailed 6 months post-randomization)

Investigators

Sponsor Class
Other
Responsible Party
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigator

Rachel Winer

Associate Professor

University of Washington

Study Sites (2)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials