METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a population based randomized control trial. Women aged 20-65 years in the population that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria were re-called for a repeat smear. There are four different intervention groups; letter, registered letters, short messages services (SMS) and phone calls where 250 subjects were recruited into each group. Samples were generated randomly from the same population in Klang into four different groups. The first group received a recall letter for a repeat smear similar to the one that has been given during the first invitation. The intervention groups were either be given a registered letter, an SMS or a phone call to re-call them. The socio-demographic data of the patients who came for uptake were collected for further analysis. All the groups were followed up after 8 weeks to assess their compliance to the recall.
CONCLUSIONS: The study will provide recommendations about the most effective methods for recall in a population based pap smear screening program on two outcomes: i) patients response; ii) uptake for repeat pap smear.
OBJECTIVE: We determined the agreement of cytological diagnoses made on samples collected by women themselves (selfsampling) versus samples collected by physicians (Physician sampling).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We invited women volunteers to undergo two procedures; cervical selfsampling using the Evalyn brush and physician sampling using a Cervex brush. The women were shown a video presentation on how to take their own cervical samples before the procedure. The samples taken by physicians were taken as per routine testing (Gold Standard). All samples were subjected to Thin Prep monolayer smears. The diagnoses made were according to the Bethesda classification. The results from these two sampling methods were analysed and compared.
RESULTS: A total of 367 women were recruited into the study, ranging from 22 to 65 years age. There was a significant good agreement of the cytological diagnoses made on the samples from the two sampling methods with the Kappa value of 0.568 (p=0.040). Using the cytological smears taken by physicians as the gold standard, the sensitivity of selfsampling was 71.9% (95% CI:70.972.8), the specificity was 86.6% (95% CI:85.7 87.5), the positive predictive value was 74.2% (95% CI:73.375.1) and the negative predictive value was 85.1% (95% CI: 84.286.0). Selfsampling smears (22.9%) allowed detection of microorganisms better than physicians samples (18.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that samples taken by women themselves (selfsampling) and physicians have good diagnostic agreement. Selfsampling could be the method of choice in countries in which the coverage of women attending clinics for screening for cervical cancer is poor.