|Author, year||Study location||Population characteristics||Study design||Sample size||Intervention description||Outcomes measures||Results|
|Gizaw et al., 2019 ||Ethiopia||
Age: 30–49 years
|CRCT||1299 (HPV Self-sampling arm:835; VIA arm:464)||
Intervention: One arm of the intervention involved self-collection-based HPV DNA testing. Women were offered an Evalyn Brush (Rovers) to collect a swab under active supervision by a trained health professional. Women collected samples in a private area in the health post. Samples were immediately placed in a plastic bag provided by the Evalyn Brush Company after giving a unique ID to the study participants.|
Control: The other arm of the study completed VIA at a hospital. A trained and certified the nurse was responsible for performing the screening. All women who tested VIA positive were rescreened by a gynecologist for quality assurance.
|Uptake of HPV testing||Of those women who attended the VIA and HPV arms, 40%, and 65.4% adhered to all procedures expected after the screening, respectively. Out of women positive for high-risk HPV, 122 (85%) attended VIA as a follow-up test. The trial demonstrated significantly higher levels of population-based uptake and adherence for self-collection HPV testing.|
|Huchko et al., 2017 ; Oketch et al., 2019 ; Page et al., 2019 ||Kenya||
Age: 25–65 years
Intervention: Cervical cancer screening was carried out using HPV testing of self-collected specimens through community health campaigns|
Control: HPV testing at health facilities
|Uptake of HPV testing||Screening uptake was greater in communities assigned to community health campaigns compared to those assigned to receive screening through health facilities (60.0% vs 37.0%, P<0.001).|
|Modibbo et al., 2017 ||Nigeria||Women residing in an urban area Age: 30–65 years||RCT||400 (Intervention group: 200; Control group: 200)||
Intervention: HPV self-sampling kit directly mailed to the home address with a prepaid return envelope (or could drop off the completed kit at designated collection points in the community or the hospital). Cervicovaginal specimen, collected at home, unsupervised.|
Device: Not reported
Control: HPV testing appointment at the hospital clinic.
Uptake of HPV testing services|
Length of follow-up: 1 month
|Most participants in the self-collection arm (93%, 185/200) submitted their samples while only 56% (113/200) of those invited to the hospital for sample collection attended and were screened during the study period (p value < 0.001).|
Moses et al., 2015 ;|
Mezei et al., 2018 
Women residing in an urban area|
Age: 30–65 years
|RCT||500 (Intervention group:250; Control group: 250)||
Intervention: HPV self-sampling kit and education offered door-to-door by outreach worker (return to the worker).|
Cervicovaginal specimen, collected at home, unsupervised.
Device: Dacron swab.
Control: Screened by a healthcare provider (VIA)
Uptake of HPV testing services.|
Linkage to clinical assessment or HPV treatment
In the HR-HPV arm, 248 of 250 (p < 0.01) women provided samples, while in the VIA arm, 121 of 250 (48.4%) women attended the screening. Among the 73 of 248 HR-HPV-positive women, 45.2% (N = 33) attended VIA screening for follow-up, 21.2% (N = 7) of whom screened positive; five received treatment, and two were missing clinical follow-up records.|
Of the 121 women in the VIA arm who attended the screening, 13.2% (N = 16) screened positive; seven received cryotherapy, three refused treatment, five were referred to colposcopy; and one woman had suspected cervical cancer and received treatment after confirmatory testing.
|Sossauer et al., 2014 ||Cameroon||
Age: 25–65 years
|RCT||301 (Intervention group:152; Control group: 149)||
Intervention: Standard information (this included explanations about what the tests detects (HPV), the link between HPV and cervical cancer, and how to perform HPV self-sampling) followed by the educational intervention (this consisted of a culturally tailored video about HPV, cervical cancer, Self-HPV, and its relevancy as a screening test).|
Control: Standard information
|Knowledge about HPV and acceptability and confidence in using self-HPV||301 women (149 in the “control group” and 152 in the “intervention group”) completed the full process and were included in the analysis. Participants who received the educational intervention had a significantly higher knowledge about HPV and cervical cancer than the control group (p,0.05), but no significant difference in Self-HPV acceptability and confidence in the method was noticed between the two groups.|