Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare the detection rate of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection between self-sampling to collect vaginal specimens and clinician sampling to collect cervical specimens, as well as the correlation between the two techniques. The secondary objective was to assess satisfaction with selfsampling for HPV testing. Methods: From October 2021 to September 2022, women positive for HPV 16/18 and other 12 high-risk HPV genotypes and cytological Ascus were enrolled. All participants were instructed on the method for self-collection of HPV samples. Self-collected vaginal samples and clinician-collected cervical samples were subjected to HPV DNA typing. Results: Paired self- and clinician-collected specimens were obtained from 104 women with positive HPV-positive results. The detection rate of high-risk HPV infection was comparable between the two techniques: 79/98 (80.6%) vs. 81/98 (82.7%) for the self-sampling and clinician-sampling techniques, respectively (McNemar’s test; P=0.774). The agreement in detecting HPV infection was substantial, with a kappa coefficient of 0.75. More than 90% of the participants rated self-collection as satisfactory to very satisfactory because of its convenience and safety. Regarding methods of further follow-up, 51% of the participants chose self-sampling, whereas the remaining participants preferred collection by clinicians. No intervention-related complications were observed. Conclusion The self-sampling technique for HPV testing was as effective as the clinician-sampling technique, and both techniques were substantially correlated in detecting high-risk HPV infection. The self-sampling method appears to be highly satisfactory and may provide better compliance for the detection of cervical HPV infection.

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare the detection rate of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection between self-sampling to collect vaginal specimens and clinician sampling to collect cervical specimens, as well as the correlation between the two techniques. The secondary objective was to assess satisfaction with selfsampling for HPV testing. Methods: From October 2021 to September 2022, women positive for HPV 16/18 and other 12 high-risk HPV genotypes and cytological Ascus were enrolled. All participants were instructed on the method for self-collection of HPV samples. Self-collected vaginal samples and clinician-collected cervical samples were subjected to HPV DNA typing. Results: Paired self- and clinician-collected specimens were obtained from 104 women with positive HPV-positive results. The detection rate of high-risk HPV infection was comparable between the two techniques: 79/98 (80.6%) vs. 81/98 (82.7%) for the self-sampling and clinician-sampling techniques, respectively (McNemar’s test; P=0.774). The agreement in detecting HPV infection was substantial, with a kappa coefficient of 0.75. More than 90% of the participants rated self-collection as satisfactory to very satisfactory because of its convenience and safety. Regarding methods of further follow-up, 51% of the participants chose self-sampling, whereas the remaining participants preferred collection by clinicians. No intervention-related complications were observed. Conclusion The self-sampling technique for HPV testing was as effective as the clinician-sampling technique, and both techniques were substantially correlated in detecting high-risk HPV infection. The self-sampling method appears to be highly satisfactory and may provide better compliance for the detection of cervical HPV infection.

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare the detection rate of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection between self-sampling to collect vaginal specimens and clinician sampling to collect cervical specimens, as well as the correlation between the two techniques. The secondary objective was to assess satisfaction with selfsampling for HPV testing. Methods: From October 2021 to September 2022, women positive for HPV 16/18 and other 12 high-risk HPV genotypes and cytological Ascus were enrolled. All participants were instructed on the method for self-collection of HPV samples. Self-collected vaginal samples and clinician-collected cervical samples were subjected to HPV DNA typing. Results: Paired self- and clinician-collected specimens were obtained from 104 women with positive HPV-positive results. The detection rate of high-risk HPV infection was comparable between the two techniques: 79/98 (80.6%) vs. 81/98 (82.7%) for the self-sampling and clinician-sampling techniques, respectively (McNemar’s test; P=0.774). The agreement in detecting HPV infection was substantial, with a kappa coefficient of 0.75. More than 90% of the participants rated self-collection as satisfactory to very satisfactory because of its convenience and safety. Regarding methods of further follow-up, 51% of the participants chose self-sampling, whereas the remaining participants preferred collection by clinicians. No intervention-related complications were observed. Conclusion The self-sampling technique for HPV testing was as effective as the clinician-sampling technique, and both techniques were substantially correlated in detecting high-risk HPV infection. The self-sampling method appears to be highly satisfactory and may provide better compliance for the detection of cervical HPV infection.

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare the detection rate of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection between self-sampling to collect vaginal specimens and clinician sampling to collect cervical specimens, as well as the correlation between the two techniques. The secondary objective was to assess satisfaction with selfsampling for HPV testing. Methods: From October 2021 to September 2022, women positive for HPV 16/18 and other 12 high-risk HPV genotypes and cytological Ascus were enrolled. All participants were instructed on the method for self-collection of HPV samples. Self-collected vaginal samples and clinician-collected cervical samples were subjected to HPV DNA typing. Results: Paired self- and clinician-collected specimens were obtained from 104 women with positive HPV-positive results. The detection rate of high-risk HPV infection was comparable between the two techniques: 79/98 (80.6%) vs. 81/98 (82.7%) for the self-sampling and clinician-sampling techniques, respectively (McNemar’s test; P=0.774). The agreement in detecting HPV infection was substantial, with a kappa coefficient of 0.75. More than 90% of the participants rated self-collection as satisfactory to very satisfactory because of its convenience and safety. Regarding methods of further follow-up, 51% of the participants chose self-sampling, whereas the remaining participants preferred collection by clinicians. No intervention-related complications were observed. Conclusion The self-sampling technique for HPV testing was as effective as the clinician-sampling technique, and both techniques were substantially correlated in detecting high-risk HPV infection. The self-sampling method appears to be highly satisfactory and may provide better compliance for the detection of cervical HPV infection.

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare the detection rate of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection between self-sampling to collect vaginal specimens and clinician sampling to collect cervical specimens, as well as the correlation between the two techniques. The secondary objective was to assess satisfaction with selfsampling for HPV testing. Methods: From October 2021 to September 2022, women positive for HPV 16/18 and other 12 high-risk HPV genotypes and cytological Ascus were enrolled. All participants were instructed on the method for self-collection of HPV samples. Self-collected vaginal samples and clinician-collected cervical samples were subjected to HPV DNA typing. Results: Paired self- and clinician-collected specimens were obtained from 104 women with positive HPV-positive results. The detection rate of high-risk HPV infection was comparable between the two techniques: 79/98 (80.6%) vs. 81/98 (82.7%) for the self-sampling and clinician-sampling techniques, respectively (McNemar’s test; P=0.774). The agreement in detecting HPV infection was substantial, with a kappa coefficient of 0.75. More than 90% of the participants rated self-collection as satisfactory to very satisfactory because of its convenience and safety. Regarding methods of further follow-up, 51% of the participants chose self-sampling, whereas the remaining participants preferred collection by clinicians. No intervention-related complications were observed. Conclusion The self-sampling technique for HPV testing was as effective as the clinician-sampling technique, and both techniques were substantially correlated in detecting high-risk HPV infection. The self-sampling method appears to be highly satisfactory and may provide better compliance for the detection of cervical HPV infection.