Johane Le Goff

Johane Le Goff

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Johane Le Goff has a total of 11 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Women’s perceptions and preferences toward HPV self-sampling in France: A questionnaire within the French CapU4 Trial

    by Hélène De Pauw, Alexandra Ducancelle, Marc Arbyn, Adeline Pivert, Anne-Sophie Le Duc Banaszuk, Juliette Noyelle, Johane Le Goff, Franck Rexand-Galais, Gilbert Donders, Caroline Lefeuvre


  • Open Access

    Acceptance of Self-Sampling by Women Not Regularly Participating in Cervical Cancer Screening in Areas with Low Medical Density: A Qualitative Study within the French CapU4 Trial

    by Johane Le Goff, Anne-Sophie Le Duc-Banaszuk, Caroline Lefeuvre, Adeline Pivert, Alexandra Ducancelle, Hélène De Pauw, Marc Arbyn, Aubeline Vinay, Franck Rexand-Galais

    Cervical cancer (CC) was diagnosed in 3159 women in France in 2023, and 1117 died from it. Organized screening for cervical cancer is potentially very effective for participating women. However, reaching under-screened populations remains a major challenge. The present qualitative study explored women’s opinions on what discourages or encourages them to participate in CC screening and assessed the acceptability of two experimental strategies (urinary or vaginal self-sampling kits) to increase the screening coverage in three rural French administrative departments with low medical density and/or low screening participation rates. Forty-eight semi-structured interviews and four focus groups were conducted by a team of psychologists. Results showed that the participants accepted at-home self-sampling to reach non-participating women in medically underserved areas. However, they suggested that the type of kit sent should be adapted to the patient’s profile (embarrassment from earlier exams, cultural aspects, fear of invasiveness, etc.), and that kits should be simple to use (in understandable language taking sociocultural aspects into account). Women wished to be assured that testing on self-samples is accurate and needed information about further actions in case of a positive result.


  • Open Access

    Acceptability to Healthcare Professionals of Home-Based HPV Self-Sampling for Cervical Screening: A French Qualitative Study Conducted in an Area with Low Access to Health Services

    by Johane Le Goff, Anne-Sophie Le Duc-Banaszuk, Caroline Lefeuvre, Adeline Pivert, Alexandra Ducancelle, Hélène De Pauw, Marc Arbyn, Aubeline Vinay, Franck Rexand-Galais

    Self-sampling may improve participation in cervical cancer secondary prevention programs by women who do not respond or respond irregularly when invited to contact a health professional for the collection of a cervical specimen. It could also help resolve access problems in areas with a low physician density. The present qualitative study examined barriers to screening, effective screening strategies, and the advantages and disadvantages of sending women urine or vaginal self-sampling kits in two medically underserved administrative departments in France (Mayenne and Sarthe) showing low cervical screening coverage. As part of the CapU4 randomized trial, a team of psychologists investigated the attitudes and experiences of 59 healthcare professionals (gynecologists, general practitioners, and midwives) through semi-structured interviews. Results indicated that health professionals believe that self-sampling may address the issues of low physician density and underscreening by removing logistical, organizational, financial, and psychological obstacles. They confirmed trust in the use of vaginal self-sampling, with urine self-sampling as an alternative solution (e.g., for women with vaginismus). The health professionals also identified several limitations of the self-sampling kit that will need to be addressed in future screening campaigns (incomplete kit, complex instructions, poor anatomical knowledge, and obesity).