ArticleJournal of medical screening2018
Barriers to cervical screening and interest in self-sampling among women who actively decline screening.
Article in Journal of medical screening, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cervical cancer screening policy inequality worldwide: a systematic review of disparities in access and implementation.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Assessment of HPV screening modalities within primary care: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Adherence to Cervical Cancer Screening Programs in Migrant Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of three different hpv self-sampling tools - a subanalysis of the prospective, randomized hannover self-collection study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Trial
- Promoting cervical cancer screening via a mailed HPV self-collection kit: Reactions from screeners and non-screeners.Patient education and counseling · 2026Trial
- Mailing Vaginal or Urine Self-Sampling Kits versus Conventional Invitation Letters: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Cervical Cancer Screening Attendance.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Trial
- Patient acceptance of HPV self-sampling approach for cervical cancer screening: evidence from a pilot study in Kazakhstan.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Native American Women's Willingness to Screen for Both Cervical and Colorectal Cancer at Home.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnosing Breastfeeding Difficulties: Where Do We Stand?Maternal & child nutrition · 2026Review
- How would Australian women and people with a cervix like to access self-collection for cervical screening? Screening preferences from a national survey.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Factors associated with women's choice for mode of cervical sampling in future cervical cancer screening.PloS one · 2026Article
- Viability of Self-Taken Vaginal Swab Samples for RNA-Based Biomarker Analysis in Cervical Disease.Journal of medical virology · 2025Article
- Understanding preferences for self-sampling in a national cervical screening programme: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Attitudes towards being offered a choice of self-sampling or clinician sampling for cervical screening: A cross-sectional survey of women taking part in a clinical validation of HPV self-collection devices.Journal of medical screening · 2025Article
- Benefits and challenges of cervical cancer screening since the implementation of the 'two cancer' screening programme in China: findings from Shangyu, Zhejiang in 2019-23.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- Exploring the barriers to cervical screening and perspectives on new self-sampling methods amongst under-served groups.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Building the foundations for an organized population-based cervical cancer screening program with primary HPV self-sampling in Catalonia, Spain: findings from a pilot implementation study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring public preferences and demand for ovarian cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Social Risk Factor Domains and Preventive Care Services in US Adults.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Experiences and Perceptions of Cervical Cancer Screening Using Self-Sampling among Under-Screened Women in Flanders.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesUnderstanding why some women actively decline cervical screening could contribute to tailored intervention development. We explored reasons for non-participation in cervical screening among women who had made an active decision not to attend in the future. We also explored interest in human papillomavirus self-sampling.
methodsIn a population-based survey of women in Great Britain, home-based computer-assisted interviews were carried out with screening eligible women. Women reported their intention to attend for screening when next invited. They endorsed predefined barriers to screening and indicated their interest in human papillomavirus self-sampling.
resultsWomen who had actively declined screening and those who intended to go but were currently overdue (n=543) were included in this analysis. Women who had made an active decision not to be screened in the future were more likely to endorse the barriers 'I have other more important things to worry about' and to perceive screening to be of low relevance based on their sexual behaviour. Most participants (70%) indicated that they would be interested in human papillomavirus self-sampling. Interest in self-sampling was greater among those who reported having had a bad experience of screening in the past, were too busy or embarrassed to attend, or would not want a man to carry out the test.
conclusionsWomen who had made an active decision not to attend screening felt it was of low relevance to them and that they had more important things to worry about. Shifting the perceived cost-benefit ratio for these women by offering human papillomavirus self-sampling might increase screening participation in this group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.