ArticleClinical epidemiology2018
HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: the effect of different invitation strategies in various socioeconomic groups - a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02680262 (A Three-armed Randomised Controlled Trial of Non-participants in an Organised Cervical Cancer Screening Programme), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 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.
A Three-armed Randomised Controlled Trial of Non-participants in an Organised Cervical Cancer Screening Programme
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identifying optimum implementation for human papillomavirus self-sampling in underserved communities: A systematic review.Journal of medical screening · 2025Pooled it
- Canadian Guideline on the Management of a Positive Human Papillomavirus Test and Guidance for Specific Populations.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Guideline
- Offering HPV self-sampling kits: an updated meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies to increase participation in cervical cancer screening.British journal of cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness studies of HPV self-sampling: A systematic review.Preventive medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ global health · 2019Pooled 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
- Reactions of women underscreened for cervical cancer who received unsolicited human papillomavirus self-sampling kits.Journal of medical screening · 2020Trial
- Self-collected cervical samples for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus: A community outreach approach in a remote region.The Indian journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Women's preferences for cervical cancer screening methods: a discrete choice experiment in Estonia and France.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Large-Scale Study Comparing Analytical and Diagnostic Quality of Three HPV Self-Sampling Devices for At-Home Cervical Cancer Screening.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Impact of mode of offer of self-sampling to people overdue cervical screening on screening participation: a randomised controlled trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Improving cervical cancer screening participation by introducing HPV vaginal self-sampling to women living with HIV in Denmark- a pilot study.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- "Well, that Was Pretty Clever!"-Ethnic Minority Women's Views on HPV Self-Sampling Devices for Cervical Cancer Screening: Attitudes to Brushes, First-Void Urine, and Menstrual Blood Devices.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- Article
- Questionnaire-Based Study on the Knowledge of Cervical Cancer and Attitude and Perception Toward Self-Sampling Method of Screening, Among Women in Sikkim, India.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2024Article
- Epidemiology of HPV-associated cancers past, present and future: towards prevention and elimination.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2024Review
- Social factors and age play a significant role in cervical cancer and advanced-stage disease among Danish women.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- HPV self-sampling implementation strategies to engage under screened communities in cervical cancer screening: a scoping review to inform screening programs.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Survey of current policies towards widening cervical screening coverage among vulnerable women in 22 European countries.European journal of public health · 2023Article
- HPV and Cervical Cancer: A Review of Epidemiology and Screening Uptake in the UK.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParticipation in cervical cancer screening varies by socioeconomic status. The aims were to assess if offering human papilloma virus (HPV) self-sampling kits has an effect on screening participation among various socioeconomic groups and to determine if two invitation strategies for offering self-sampling influence the participation rate equally.
methodsThe study was based on registry data that were applied to data from a randomized controlled trial (n=9,791) measuring how offering HPV self-sampling affected screening participation. The women received either 1) a self-sampling kit mailed directly to their homes (directly mailed group); 2) an invitation to order the kit (opt-in group); or 3) a standard second reminder to attend regular cytology screening (control group). The participation data were linked to registries containing socioeconomic information.
resultsWomen in the directly mailed group participated significantly more than women in the control group, regardless of their socioeconomic status, but the largest effects were observed in Western immigrants (participation difference [PD]=18.1%, 95% CI=10.2%-26.0%) and social welfare recipients (PD=15.2%, 95% CI=9.7%-20.6%). Compared with the control group, opt-in self-sampling only had an insignificant effect on participation among women who were immigrants, retired, or less educated. Western immigrants had a significantly higher increase in participation than native Danish women when kits were mailed directly compared with the opt-in strategy (PD=18.1%, 95% CI=10.2%-26.2% and PD=5.5%, 95% CI=2.9%-8.1%, respectively,
conclusionAll socioeconomic groups benefited from the directly mailed strategy in terms of higher screening participation, but Western immigrants and lower socioeconomic groups seemed to benefit the most. Immigrants and some lower socioeconomic groups only had insignificant benefits of opt-in self-sampling. The directly mailed strategy might be preferable to opt-in self-sampling because it ensures that ethnic minority groups obtain benefits of introducing HPV self-sampling in an organized cervical cancer screening program.
trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials NCT02680262. Registered February 10, 2016.
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.