We investigated gay and bisexual men’s willingness to self-administer an anal cancer screening test at home.
We conducted 2 national, online cross-sectional surveys of self-identified gay and bisexual men: Study I in 2009 with men ages 20 to 59 (n = 306) and Study II in 2013 with men ages 18 to 26 (n = 428). We used multivariate logistic regression analyses to determine variables associated with willingness to self-administer the screening test.
Most men were willing to self-administer an anal cancer screening test (78% Study I; 67% Study II). In Study I, willingness was higher among men who trusted anal Paps to find treatable cancer (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.04–2.09) and who believed that men who have sex with men should be screened for anal cancer between 1 and 3 years vs. other intervals (aOR = 2.19; 95% CI, 1.17–4.10). In Study II, willingness was higher among men who perceived greater likelihood of anal cancer (aOR = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.12–2.20). Their most common concerns were not performing the test correctly and inaccuracy of results.
Many gay and bisexual men were willing to self-administer anal cancer screening tests at home. If routine screening is warranted, self-collected home testing could improve participation.
Two national studies of gay and bisexual men found that most were willing to use a self-collected test for anal cancer.
1UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC; 2Divison of Cancer Prevention and Control, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; 3Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; 4Division of Health Behavior and Health Promotion, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and 5Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC
Correspondence to: Noel T. Brewer, PhD, Department of Health Behavior Gillings School of Global Public Health University of North Carolina 325 Rosenau Hall, CB 7440 Chapel Hill, NC 27599. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
Source of Funding: Supported in part by a research grant from the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Additional support provided by the American Cancer Society (MSRG-06-259-01-CPPB) and the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (R25 CA57726 and P30CA016058).
Conflict of Interest: A research grant to NTB from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. funded Study I. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. played no role in the study design, planning, implementation, analysis, or reporting of the findings. NTB has received other grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and served on paid advisory boards for Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. PLR has also received additional grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and a research grant from Cervical Cancer-Free America, via an unrestricted educational grant from GlaxoSmithKline.
Declaration of Interests
NTB has received other grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and served on paid advisory boards for Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. PLR has also received additional grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
IRB Status: This study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill.
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.jlgtd.com).