Table 2. Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Outcomes for the Intervention vs Control Group.
| Outcome | No. (%) | Relative Risk (95% CI)a | Absolute Risk Difference (95% CI)a | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group (n = 9960) | Control Group (n = 9891) | |||
| Primary outcome | ||||
| Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher | 12 (0.12) | 8 (0.08) | 1.49 (0.61 to 3.64) | 0.04 (−0.05 to 0.13) |
| Treatment received | 12 (0.12) | 7 (0.07) | 1.70 (0.67 to 4.32) | 0.05 (−0.04 to 0.14) |
| Secondary outcome | ||||
| Screening uptakeb | 2618 (26.3) | 1719 (17.4) | 1.51 (1.43 to 1.60) | 8.9 (7.8 to 10.0) |
| Screening abnormalc | 225 (2.3) | 114 (1.2) | 1.96 (1.57 to 2.45) | 1.1 (0.8 to 1.5) |
a
Robust variance estimates were used to account for within-participant correlation due to rerandomized participants contributing more than 1 observation period.
b
Screening uptake is defined as completion of screening episode; therefore, women who tested positive for human papillomavirus types other than 16 or 18 only or unsatisfactory on the mailed kit must have completed the additional step of in-clinic follow-up (Papanicolaou, cotest, or colposcopy).
c
Abnormal screening result defined as a result that warrants repeated testing, surveillance, or immediate colposcopy (per national guidelines22) before returning to a routine screening schedule.