Background: In many low-resourced settings, self-collected HPV-based cervical cancer screening (SCS) is being rolled out through task shifting to community health workers (CHWs). Process evaluations are needed to ensure SCS programs are effective and translate to community-based contexts. Methods: The Advances in Screening and Prevention in Reproductive Cancers (ASPIRE) study in Mayuge, Uganda was a two-arm, pragmatic randomized trial comparing two SCS implementation strategies facilitated by CHWs: Door-to-door and Community health day recruitment. This adjunct study uses the RE-AIM evaluation framework to assess the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance of each implementation strategy in a subpopulation using process data collected throughout the trial. Results: Of the trial population (n=2019), 781 women participated in both the baseline and exit surveys (door-to-door: n=406; community health day: n=375) and are included in this analysis. Both implementation strategies demonstrated high Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance. Trial consent rate was high and 100% of consenting participants in both arms participated in SCS (Reach). Follow-up rates among HPV positive participants were also high in both arms (door-to-door: 84% and community health day: 74%) (Efficacy). The intervention employed 61 CHWs, 7 nurses, 3 health facilities and other local staff within the health system to implement the intervention (Adoption). The community health day arm received HPV screening results and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) quicker than the door-to-door arm, but reported higher dissatisfaction with wait times (Implementation). While women had knowledge of cervical cancer symptoms and prevention measures at six-months post-intervention, no one in either arm recalled that cervical cancer could be asymptomatic (Maintenance). Conclusion: Both SCS implementation strategies performed well, demonstrating high Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance throughout participating communities. Implementing pragmatic approaches including task-shifting to CHWs can reduce health worker burden and improve screening access in low-resourced, community-based settings.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

NCT04000503

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32005202/

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia Children and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia gave ethical approval for this work.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study (restricted to nonidentifying data owing to privacy concerns) can be requested for scientific purposes only from the corresponding or senior authors, who will handle all requests.