{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,4]],"date-time":"2026-05-04T17:34:48Z","timestamp":1777916088426,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":19,"publisher":"SAGE Publications","issue":"12","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2012,12,1]],"date-time":"2012-12-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1354320000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/page\/policies\/text-and-data-mining-license"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["journals.sagepub.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Journal of Women's Health"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2012,12]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      A simpler approach to cervical cancer screening could increase coverage, thus reducing cervical cancer mortality in the United States. Self-collection of specimens for screening tests may be one such approach. The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability of a self-lavaging device (Delphi Screener\n                      <jats:sup>\u2122<\/jats:sup>\n                      , Scherpenzeel, The Netherlands) for cervical cancer screening. Self-lavage specimens have been shown to have equivalent sensitivity for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) when coupled with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests as clinician-collected specimens with cytologic review.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Low-income women (n=198) who had recently received cervical cytologic testing in one of three participating clinics in New York City enrolled; 197 self-lavaged. Women answered open-ended and closed-ended questions on ease of use, level of comfort with the self-lavage and the pelvic examination, and future screening preference.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Ninety-six percent of women reported they were very\/somewhat comfortable self-lavaging compared to 47% very\/somewhat comfortable with the clinician collecting a specimen during a pelvic examination (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">p<\/jats:italic>\n                      &lt;0.001). The majority (79%) would prefer self-lavage the next time they need to be screened; only 8% would prefer pelvic examination by a doctor, and 14% had no preference. The main reasons for preferring self-lavage centered on convenience and comfort.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Self-lavaging was highly acceptable to women in this study. Self-collection of specimens has the potential to simplify screening and reduce logistical barriers for many women, which could increase overall coverage of cervical cancer screening.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1089\/jwh.2012.3512","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2012,8,20]],"date-time":"2012-08-20T14:56:48Z","timestamp":1345474608000},"page":"1275-1281","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/sage-journals-update-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":25,"title":["The Acceptability of a Self-Lavaging Device Compared to Pelvic Examination for Cervical Cancer Screening Among Low-Income Women"],"prefix":"10.1177","volume":"21","author":[{"given":"Heidi E.","family":"Jones","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Columbia University Medical Center"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Karen","family":"Brudney","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Columbia University Medical Center"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Dorothy J.","family":"Sawo","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Columbia University Medical Center"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Rafael","family":"Lantigua","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Columbia University Medical Center"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Carolyn L.","family":"Westhoff","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Columbia University Medical Center"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"179","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2012,12,1]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_2","unstructured":"Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Healthy people 2020 objectives. 2011. healthypeople.gov\/2020\/topicsobjectives2020\/default.aspx. 2011 July 19."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_3_2","unstructured":"U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2010 progress review. 2006. www.healthypeople.gov\/data\/2010prog\/focus03\/2006Focus3.pdf. 2010 May 3."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_4_2","volume-title":"Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey data","author":"Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)","year":"2010","unstructured":"Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey data. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 2010."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_5_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1023\/A:1019888627113"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_6_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1158\/1055-9965.EPI-07-2629"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_7_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1128\/JCM.02440-05"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_8_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/OLQ.0b013e3181812cf0"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_9_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/jwh.2010.2189"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_10_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/jwh.2005.14.721"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_11_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/jnci\/dji115"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_12_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/ijc.22484"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_13_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.c1040"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_14_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/ijc.25581"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_15_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ypmed.2011.03.018"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_16_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1300\/J013v39n03_05"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_17_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1258\/jms.2009.009069"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_18_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1038\/sj.bjc.6606040"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_19_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/sti.2004.011858"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_20_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ygyno.2007.01.023"}],"container-title":["Journal of Women's Health"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1089\/jwh.2012.3512","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1089\/jwh.2012.3512","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1089\/jwh.2012.3512","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,1]],"date-time":"2026-05-01T17:38:00Z","timestamp":1777657080000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1089\/jwh.2012.3512"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2012,12]]},"references-count":19,"journal-issue":{"issue":"12","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2012,12]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1089\/jwh.2012.3512"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1089\/jwh.2012.3512","relation":{},"ISSN":["1540-9996","1931-843X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1540-9996","type":"print"},{"value":"1931-843X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2012,12]]}}}