Self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening: a qualitative evidence meta-synthesis

Hawa Camara, Ye Zhang, Lise Lafferty, Andrew J Vallely, Rebecca Guy, Angela Kelly-Hanku, Hawa Camara, Ye Zhang, Lise Lafferty, Andrew J Vallely, Rebecca Guy, Angela Kelly-Hanku

Abstract

Background: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer affecting women worldwide, with 85% of the burden estimated to occur among women in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Recent developments in cervical cancer screening include a novel self-collection method for the detection of oncogenic HPV strains in the collected samples. The purpose of this review is to synthesise qualitative research on self-collection for HPV-based testing for cervical screening and identify strategies to increase acceptability and feasibility in different settings, to alleviate the burden of disease.

Methods: This review includes qualitative studies published between 1986 and 2020. A total of 10 databases were searched between August 2018 and May 2020 to identify qualitative studies focusing on the perspectives and experiences of self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening from the point of view of women, health care workers and other key stakeholders (i.e., policymakers). Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, quality, and framework thematic synthesis findings. The Socio-Ecological Model (SEM) was used to synthesize the primary studies.

Results: A total of 1889 publications were identified, of which 31 qualitative studies were included. Using an adapted version of SEM, 10 sub-themes were identified and classified under each of the adapted model's constructs: (a) intrapersonal, (b) interpersonal, and (c) health systems/public policy. Some of the themes included under the intrapersonal (or individual) construct include the importance of self-efficacy, and values attributed to self-collection. Under the intrapersonal construct, the findings centre around the use of self-collection and its impact on social relationships. The last construct of health systems focuses on needs to ensure access to self-collection, the need for culturally sensitive programs to improve health literacy, and continuum of care.

Conclusion: This review presents the global qualitative evidence on self-collection for HPV-based testing and details potential strategies to address socio-cultural and structural barriers and facilitators to the use of self-collection. If addressed during the design of an HPV-based cervical cancer screening testing intervention program, these strategies could significantly increase the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and lead to more effective and sustainable access to cervical screening services for women worldwide.

Keywords: Framework synthesis; HPV testing; Qualitative meta-synthesis; Self-collection.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow Diagram of inclusion process for searches completed between August 2018 and May 2020
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Strategies to increase acceptability and feasibility of self-collection for HPV testing per the adapted SEM

References

    1. Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjosé S, Saraiya M, Ferlay J, Bray F. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(2):e191–e203. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6.
    1. Safaeian M, Solomon D, Castle PE. Cervical cancer prevention--cervical screening: science in evolution. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2007;34(4):739–760. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2007.09.004.
    1. Sahasrabuddhe VV, Parham GP, Mwanahamuntu MH, Vermund SH. Cervical cancer prevention in low- and middle-income countries: feasible, affordable, essential. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2012;5(1):11–17. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0540.
    1. Sankaranarayanan R, Anorlu R, Sangwa-Lugoma G, Denny LA. Infrastructure requirements for human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa. Vaccine. 2013;31(Suppl 5):F47–F52. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.06.066.
    1. Shanmugasundaram S, You J. Targeting persistent human papillomavirus infection. Viruses. 2017;9(8):229. doi: 10.3390/v9080229.
    1. Bosch FX, Lorincz A, Muñoz N, Meijer CJLM, Shah KV. The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55:244–265. doi: 10.1136/jcp.55.4.244.
    1. Koliopoulos G, Nyaga VN, Santesso N, Bryant A, Martin-Hirsch PP, Mustafa RA, et al. Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;8:CD008587.
    1. Denny LA, Sankaranarayanan R, De Vuyst H, Kim JJ, Adefuye PO, Alemany L, et al. Recommendations for cervical cancer prevention in sub-saharan Africa. Vaccine. 2013;31(Suppl 5):F73–F74. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.11.077.
    1. Mohammed SI, Ren W, Flowers L, Rajwa B, Chibwesha CJ, Parham GP, Irudayaraj JMK. Point-of-care test for cervical cancer in LMICs. Oncotarget. 2016;7(14):18787–18797. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.7709.
    1. Goldie SJ, Gaffikin L, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Gordillo-Tobar A, Carol Levin PD. Cédric Mahé, Wright TC. Cost-effectiveness of cervical-Cancer screening in five developing countries. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(20):2158–2168. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa044278.
    1. McGraw SL, Ferrante JM. Update on prevention and screening of cervical cancer. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5(4):744–752. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v5.i4.744.
    1. Barbee L, Kobetz E, Menard J, Cook N, Blanco J, Barton B, Auguste P, McKenzie N. Assessing the acceptability of self-sampling for HPV among Haitian immigrant women: CBPR in action. Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21(3):421–431. doi: 10.1007/s10552-009-9474-0.
    1. Menard JM. The social context of cervical Cancer knowledge and prevention among Haitian immigrant women [doctor of philosophy]: Florida, USA: University of South Florida; 2008.
    1. Petignat P, Faltin DL, Bruchim I, Tramer MR, Franco EL, Coutlee F. Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(2):530–535. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.01.023.
    1. Ogilvie GS, Patrick DM, Schulzer M, Sellors JW, Petric M, Chambers K, White R, FitzGerald J. Diagnostic accuracy of self collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus compared to clinician collected human papillomavirus specimens: a meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect. 2005;81(3):207–212. doi: 10.1136/sti.2004.011858.
    1. Szarewski A, Cadman L, Mallett S, Austin J, Londesborough P, Waller J, et al. Human papillomavirus testing by self-sampling: assessment of accuracy in an unsupervised clinical setting. J Med Screen. 2007;14(1):34–42. doi: 10.1258/096914107780154486.
    1. Toliman PJ, Kaldor JM, Badman SG, Gabuzzi J, Silim S, Kumbia A, Kombuk B, Kombati Z, Munnull G, Guy R, Vallely LM, Kelly-Hanku A, Wand H, Ryan C, Tan G, Brotherton J, Saville M, Mola GDL, Garland SM, Tabrizi SN, Vallely AJ. Performance of clinical screening algorithms comprising point-of-care HPV-DNA testing using self-collected vaginal specimens, and visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid, for the detection of underlying high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in Papua New Guinea. Papillomavirus Res. 2018;6:70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.pvr.2018.10.009.
    1. Bansil P, Wittet S, Lim JL, Winkler JL, Paul P, Jeronimo J. Acceptability of self-collection sampling for HPV-DNA testing in low-resource settings: a mixed methods approach. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1). 10.1186/1471-2458-14-596.
    1. Mao C, Kulasingam SL, Whitham HK, Hawes SE, Lin J, Kiviat NB. Clinician and patient acceptability of self-collected human papillomavirus testing for cervical Cancer screening. J Women's Health (Larchmt) 2017;26(6):609–615. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2016.5965.
    1. Racey CS, Withrow DR, Gesink D. Self-collected HPV testing improves participation in cervical Cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Public Health. 2013;104(2):159–166. doi: 10.1007/BF03405681.
    1. Stewart DE, Gagliardi A, Johnston M, Howlett R, Barata P, Lewis N, Oliver T, Mai V, HPV Self-collection Guidelines Panel Self-collected samples for testing of oncogenic human papillomavirus: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007;29(10):817–828. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32636-6.
    1. Ogilvie G, Krajden M, Maginley J, Isaac-Renton J, Hislop G, Elwood-Martin R, Sherlock C, Taylor D, Rekart M. Feasibility of self-collection of specimens for human papillomavirus testing in hard-to-reach women. CMAJ. 2007;177(5):480–483. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.070013.
    1. Anderson KM, Olson S. Leveraging culture to address health inequalities: examples from native communities. Washington DC: The National Academies of Press; 2013. pp. 28–34.
    1. Bearman M, Dawson P. Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Med Educ. 2013;47(3):252–260. doi: 10.1111/medu.12092.
    1. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(181):1–8.
    1. Camara H, Zhang Y, Lafferty L, Vallely A, Guy R, Kelly-Hanku A. Qualitative evidence synthesis on self-collection for human papillomavirus–based cervical screening: protocol for systematic review. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020;9(10):1–7. doi: 10.2196/21093.
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339(jul21 1):b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700.
    1. Ames HM, Glenton C, Lewin S, Tamrat T, Akama E, Leon N. Clients’ perceptions and experiences of targeted digital communication accessible via mobile devices for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:CD013447.
    1. Brunton G, Oliver S, Thomas J. Innovations in framework synthesis as a systematic review method. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(3):316–330. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1399.
    1. NVivo qualitative data analysis software. 12.5 ed: QSR International Pty Ltd.; 2018. .
    1. Houghton C, Murphy K, Meehan B, Thomas J, Brooker D, Casey D. From screening to synthesis: using nvivo to enhance transparency in qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(5–6):873–881. doi: 10.1111/jocn.13443.
    1. McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15(4):351–377. doi: 10.1177/109019818801500401.
    1. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) CASP Systematic Review Checklist. 2019.
    1. Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual) PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001895. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895.
    1. Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Rashidian A, Wainwright M, Bohren MA, Tunçalp Ö, Colvin CJ, Garside R, Carlsen B, Langlois EV, Noyes J. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implement Sci. 2018;13(Suppl 1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3.
    1. Colvin CJ, Garside R, Wainwright M, Munthe-Kaas H, Glenton C, Bohren MA, Carlsen B, Tunçalp Ö, Noyes J, Booth A, Rashidian A, Flottorp S, Lewin S. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 4: how to assess coherence. Implement Sci. 2018;13(Suppl 1):13. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0691-8.
    1. Glenton C, Carlsen B, Lewin S, Munthe-Kaas H, Colvin CJ, Tuncalp O, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data. Implement Sci. 2018;13(Suppl 1):14. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0692-7.
    1. Munthe-Kaas H, Bohren MA, Glenton C, Lewin S, Noyes J, Tunçalp Ö, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 3: how to assess methodological limitations. Implement Sci. 2018;13(S1):25–32. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0690-9.
    1. Noyes J, Booth A, Lewin S, Carlsen B, Glenton C, Colvin CJ, Garside R, Bohren MA, Rashidian A, Wainwright M, Tunςalp Ö, Chandler J, Flottorp S, Pantoja T, Tucker JD, Munthe-Kaas H. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data. Implement Sci. 2018;13(Suppl 1):4. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0693-6.
    1. Cadman L, Ashdown-Barr L, Waller J, Szarewski A. Attitudes towards cytology and human papillomavirus self-sample collection for cervical screening among Hindu women in London, UK: a mixed methods study. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2015;41(1):38–47. doi: 10.1136/jfprhc-2013-100705.
    1. Scarinci IC, Litton AG, Garces-Palacio IC, Partridge EE, Castle PE. Acceptability and usability of self-collected sampling for HPV testing among African-American women living in the Mississippi Delta. Womens Health Issues. 2013;23(2):e123–e130. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2012.12.003.
    1. Penaranda E, Molokwu J, Hernandez I, Salaiz R, Nguyen N, Byrd T, Shokar N. Attitudes toward self-sampling for cervical cancer screening among primary care attendees living on the US-Mexico border. South Med J. 2014;107(7):426–432. doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000132.
    1. Racey CS, Gesink DC. Barriers and facilitators to cervical Cancer screening among women in rural Ontario, Canada: the role of self-collected HPV testing. J Rural Health. 2016;32(2):136–145. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12136.
    1. Howard M, Lytwyn A, Lohfeld L, Redwood-Campbell L, Fowler N, Karwalajtys T. Barriers to acceptance of self-sampling for human papillomavirus across EthnolinguisticGroups of women. Can J Public Health. 2009;100(5):365–369. doi: 10.1007/BF03405272.
    1. Allen-Leigh B, Uribe-Zuniga P, Leon-Maldonado L, Brown BJ, Lorincz A, Salmeron J, et al. Barriers to HPV self-sampling and cytology among low-income indigenous women in rural areas of a middle-income setting: a qualitative study. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):734. doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3723-5.
    1. McDowell M, Pardee DJ, Peitzmeier S, Reisner SL, Agenor M, Alizaga N, et al. Cervical Cancer screening preferences among trans-masculine individuals: patient-collected human papillomavirus vaginal swabs versus provider-administered pap tests. LGBT Health. 2017;4(4):252–259. doi: 10.1089/lgbt.2016.0187.
    1. Wakewich P, Wood B, Davey C, Laframboise A, Zehbe I. Colonial legacy and the experience of first nations women in cervical cancer screening: a Canadian multi-community study. Crit Public Health. 2016;26(4):368–380. doi: 10.1080/09581596.2015.1067671.
    1. Barata PC, Mai V, Howlett R, Gagliardi AR, Stewart DE. Discussions about self-obtained samples for HPV testing as an alternative for cervical cancer prevention. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;29(4):251–257. doi: 10.1080/01674820802076038.
    1. Szarewski A, Cadman L, Ashdown-Barr L, Waller J. Exploring the acceptability of two self-sampling devices for human papillomavirus testing in the cervical screening context: a qualitative study of Muslim women in London. J Med Screen. 2009;16(4):193–198. doi: 10.1258/jms.2009.009069.
    1. Brandt T, Wubneh SB, Handebo S, Debalkie G, Ayanaw Y, Alemu K, Jede F, von Knebel Doeberitz M, Bussmann H. Genital self-sampling for HPV-based cervical cancer screening: a qualitative study of preferences and barriers in rural Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1026. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7354-4.
    1. Vahabi M, Lofters A. Muslim immigrant women’s views on cervical cancer screening and HPV self-sampling in Ontario, Canada. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):868. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3564-1.
    1. Richman AR, Brewer NT, Liebman AK, Rinas AC, Smith JS. Optimising human papillomavirus self-testing for high risk women. Sex Transm Infect. 2011;87(2):118–122. doi: 10.1136/sti.2010.046326.
    1. Katz ML, Zimmermann BJ, Moore D, Paskett ED, Reiter PL. Perspectives from health-care providers and women about completing human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing at home. Women Health. 2017;57(10):1161–1177. doi: 10.1080/03630242.2016.1243608.
    1. Oketch SY, Kwena Z, Choi Y, Adewumi K, Moghadassi M, Bukusi EA, Huchko MJ. Perspectives of women participating in a cervical cancer screening campaign with community-based HPV self-sampling in rural western Kenya: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health. 2019;19(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0778-2.
    1. Zehbe I, Wakewich P, King A-D, Morrisseau K, Tuck C. Self-administered versus provider directed sampling in the Anishinaabek cervical Cancer screening study (ACCSS): a qualitative investigation with Canadian first nations women. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e017384. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017384.
    1. Wood B, Lofters A, Vahabi M. Strategies to reach marginalized women for cervical cancer screening: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives. Curr Oncol. 2018;25(1):e8–e16. doi: 10.3747/co.25.3851.
    1. Jones HE, Brudney K, Sawo DJ, Lantigua R, Westhoff CL. The acceptability of a self-lavaging device compared to pelvic examination for cervical cancer screening among low-income women. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2012;21(12):1275–1281. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2012.3512.
    1. Fargnoli V, Petignat P, Burton-Jeangros C. To what extent will women accept HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening? A qualitative study conducted in Switzerland. Int J Women's Health. 2015;7:883–888. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S90772.
    1. Tiro JA, Betts AC, Kimbel K, Buist DSM, Mao C, Gao H, Shulman L, Malone C, Beatty T, Lin J, Thayer C, Miglioretti DL, Winer RL. Understanding Patients' perspectives and information needs following a positive home human papillomavirus self-sampling kit result. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2019;28(3):384–392. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2018.7070.
    1. Teng FF, Mitchell SM, Sekikubo M, Biryabarema C, Byamugisha JK, Steinberg M, Money DM, Ogilvie GS. Understanding the role of embarrassment in gynaecological screening: a qualitative study from the ASPIRE cervical cancer screening project in Uganda. BMJ Open. 2014;4(4):e004783. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004783.
    1. Burton-Jeangros C, Fargnoli V, Bertho IV, Fioretta J. A qualitative study of barriers to screening and HPV self-sampling acceptability. Universite de Geneve; 2013. Women’s views on cervical cancer screening.
    1. Sultana F, Mullins R, Murphy M, English DR, Simpson JA, Drennan KT, Heley S, Wrede CD, Brotherton JML, Saville M, Gertig DM. Women’s views on human papillomavirus self-sampling: focus groups to assess acceptability, invitation letters and a test kit in the Australian setting. Sex Health. 2015;12(4):279–286. doi: 10.1071/SH14236.
    1. Bakiewicz A, Rasch V, Mwaiselage J, Linde DS. “The best thing is that you are doing it for yourself” - perspectives on acceptability and feasibility of HPV self-sampling among cervical cancer screening clients in Tanzania: a qualitative pilot study. BMC Womens Health. 2020;20(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s12905-020-00917-7.
    1. Williams D, Davies M, Fiander A, Farewell D, Hillier S, Brain K. Women’s perspectives on human papillomavirus self-sampling in the context of the UK cervical screening programme. Health Expect. 2017;20(5):1031–1040. doi: 10.1111/hex.12544.
    1. Arrossi S, Ramos S, Straw C, Thouyaret L, Orellana L. HPV testing: a mixed-method approach to understand why women prefer self-collection in a middle-income country. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):832. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3474-2.
    1. Mitchell EM, Lothamer H, Garcia C, Marais AD, Camacho F, Poulter M, et al. Acceptability and feasibility of community-based, lay navigator-facilitated at-home self-collection for human papillomavirus testing in Underscreened women. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2020;29(4):596–602. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2018.7575.
    1. McLachlan E, Anderson S, Hawkes D, Saville M, Arabena K. Completing the cervical screening pathway: factors that facilitate the increase of self-collection uptake among under-screened and never-screened women, an Australian pilot study. Curr Oncol. 2018;25(1):e17–e26. doi: 10.3747/co.25.3916.
    1. Adewumi K, Oketch SY, Choi Y, Huchko MJ. Female perspectives on male involvement in a human-papillomavirus-based cervical cancer-screening program in western Kenya. BMC Womens Health. 2019;19(1):107. doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0804-4.
    1. Podolak I, Kisia C, Omosa-Manyonyi G, Cosby J. Using a multimethod approach to develop implementation strategies for a cervical self-sampling program in Kenya. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):222. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2160-0.
    1. Garrow SC, Smith DW, Harnett GB. The diagnosis of chlamydia, gonorrhoea, and trichomonas infections by self obtained low vaginal swabs, in remote northern Australian clinical practice. Sex Transm Infect. 2002;78:278–281. doi: 10.1136/sti.78.4.278.
    1. Bates CK, Carroll N, Potter J. The challenging pelvic examination. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(6):651–657. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1610-8.
    1. Quincy BL. Acceptability of self-collected human papillomavirus specimens in cervical cancer screening: a review. World J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;3(3):90. doi: 10.5317/wjog.v3.i3.90.
    1. Kelly-Hanku A, Ase S, Fiya V, Toliman P, Aeno H, Mola GM, Kaldor JM, Vallely LM, Vallely AJ. Ambiguous bodies, uncertain diseases: knowledge of cervical cancer in Papua New Guinea. Ethn Health. 2018;23(6):659–681. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2017.1283393.
    1. Persson A, Kelly-Hanku A, Bell S, Mek A, Worth H, Nake Trumb R. “Vibrant entanglements”: HIV biomedicine and Serodiscordant couples in Papua New Guinea. Med Anthropol. 2019;38(3):267–281. doi: 10.1080/01459740.2018.1530670.
    1. Lawrance L, McLeroy KR. Self-efficacy and Health Education. J School Health. 1986;56(8):317–321. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.1986.tb05761.x.
    1. Ebu NI, Amissah-Essel S, Asiedu C, Akaba S, Pereko KA. Impact of health education intervention on knowledge and perception of cervical cancer and screening for women in Ghana. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1505. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7867-x.
    1. Bracke P, Christiaens W, Verhaeghe M. Self-esteem, self-efficacy, and the balance of peer support among persons with chronic mental health problems. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2008;38(2):436–459. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00312.x.
    1. Fitzgerald A, Heary C, Kelly C, Nixon E, Shevlin M. Self-efficacy for healthy eating and peer support for unhealthy eating are associated with adolescents' food intake patterns. Appetite. 2013;63:48–58. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.12.011.
    1. Kong LN, Hu P, Yang L, Cui D. The effectiveness of peer support on self-efficacy and quality of life in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75(4):711–722. doi: 10.1111/jan.13870.
    1. Zhang D, Advani S, Waller J, Cupertino A-P, Hurtado-de-Mendoza A, Chicaiza A, Rohloff PJ, Akinyemiju TF, Gharzouzi E, Huchko MJ, Barnoya J, Braithwaite D. Mobile technologies and cervical Cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. JCO Global Oncol. 2020;6:617–627. doi: 10.1200/JGO.19.00201.
    1. Sanchez Antelo V, Kohler RE, Curotto M, Viswanath KV, Paolino M, Arrossi S. Developing SMS content to promote Papanicolaou triage among women who performed HPV self-collection test: qualitative study. JMIR Form Res. 2020;4(3):e14652. doi: 10.2196/14652.
    1. Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B. Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J. 2008;204(6):291–295. doi: 10.1038/bdj.2008.192.
    1. Nyumba T, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, Mukherjee N, Geneletti D. The use of focus group discussion methodology: insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol Evol. 2018;9(1):20–32. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12860.
    1. Bayliss K, Starling B, Raza K, Johansson EC, Zabalan C, Moore S, Skingle D, Jasinski T, Thomas S, Stack R. Patient involvement in a qualitative meta-synthesis: lessons learnt. Res Involv Engage. 2016;2(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0032-0.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir