Trial reportJournal of medical screening2020
Reactions of women underscreened for cervical cancer who received unsolicited human papillomavirus self-sampling kits.
Trial report in Journal of medical screening, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Acceptability and Feasibility of Home-Based Human Papillomavirus Self-Testing as Primary Screening for Cervical Cancer Detection in the State of Alabama.Journal of community health · 2026Article
- HOme-based self-sampling for cervical cancer prevention education among women living with HIV in Ghana (HOPE-inG): study protocol for a cluster-randomized type 2 hybrid effectiveness implementation trial.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Factors associated with women's choice for mode of cervical sampling in future cervical cancer screening.PloS one · 2026Article
- Mailing human papillomavirus self-sampling kits to women under-screened for cervical cancer improved detection in cervical cancer screening in a general population study in Japan.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Article
- Cervical Cancer Prevention and High-Risk HPV Self-Sampling Awareness and Acceptability among Women Living with HIV: A Qualitative Investigation from the Patients' and Providers' Perspectives.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Out of reach? Correlates of cervical cancer underscreening in women with varying levels of healthcare interactions in a United States integrated delivery system.Preventive medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate experiences and reactions after receiving a mailed, unsolicited human papillomavirus self-sampling kit and identify psychosocial correlates of using kits.
methodsSurvey participants were underscreened women aged 30-64 who were mailed human papillomavirus kits as part of a pragmatic trial at Kaiser Permanente Washington, a United States integrated health care system. Six months after the mailing, we invited kit returners and non-returners to complete a web survey that measured psychosocial factors (e.g. cervical cancer/human papillomavirus knowledge, attitudes toward screening), experiences, and reactions to kits. We compared responses between kit returners and non-returners.
resultsComparing 116 kit returners (272 invited) and 119 non-returners (1083 invited), we found no clinically significant differences in psychosocial factors. Overall, survey respondents showed knowledge gaps in human papillomavirus natural history (82% did not know human papillomavirus infection can clear on its own) and interpreting human papillomavirus test results (37% did not know a human papillomavirus-negative result indicates low cancer risk). Kit returners found kits convenient and easy to use (>90%). The most common reason for non-return was low confidence in ability to correctly use a kit, although many non-returners (49%) indicated that they would consider future use. Women reported low trust in human papillomavirus testing to identify women at high risk for cervical cancer (52% in returners, 42% in non-returners).
conclusionsScreening programs could improve uptake and acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling through outreach materials that emphasize the high efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening and educate patients about how to interpret results.
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.