ArticlePloS one2020
Implementation of Australia's renewed cervical screening program: Preparedness of general practitioners and nurses.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Validation of a Vaginal Cervical Cancer Screening Self-Collection Method for At-Home Use: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Impact of Human Papillomavirus Primary Cervical Screening on Referral Rates and Outcomes for People Referred to Colposcopy for Clinical Reasons.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Article
- Experiences of HPV self-collection among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and people with a cervix.PloS one · 2026Article
- Communicating abnormal cervical cancer screening results - a focus group study with general practitioners in Norway.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Practitioners support and intention to adopt universal access to self-collection in Australia's National Cervical Screening Program.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- The acceptability of, and informational needs related to, self-collection cervical screening among women of Indian descent living in Victoria, Australia: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Working together with people with intellectual disability to make a difference: a protocol for a mixed-method co-production study to address inequities in cervical screening participation.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- HPV testing in Polish population-based cervical cancer screening programme (HIPPO project)-study protocol of a randomised healthcare policy trial.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Widening the offer of human papillomavirus self-sampling to all women eligible for cervical screening: Make haste slowly.International journal of cancer · 2023Review
- Implementation of Australia's primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical screening program: The STakeholders Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- 'I'm a bit of a champion for it actually': qualitative insights into practitioner-supported self-collection cervical screening among early adopting Victorian practitioners in Australia.Primary health care research & development · 2023Article
- Self-Collection Cervical Screening in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Scoping Review of Implementation Evidence.JCO global oncology · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Do they cope or mope? A survey of GPs' experiences with the changes in the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2022Article
- National experience in the first two years of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical screening in an HPV vaccinated population in Australia: observational study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Observational
- The relationship of human papillomavirus and cytology co-testing results with endometrial and ovarian cancer diagnoses.Gynecologic oncology · 2021Article
- Human papillomavirus genotype contribution to cervical cancer and precancer: Implications for screening and vaccination in Japan.Cancer science · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) in Australia underwent major changes on December 1st, 2017. The program changed from 2-yearly Pap testing for women aged 18-69 years to 5-yearly HPV testing for women aged 25-74 years including differential management pathways for oncogenic HPV 16/18 positive versus HPV non16/18 positive test results and the option of self-collection for under-screened women. We conducted a survey among cervical screening providers in primary care to assess their level of preparedness in undertaking cervical screening before (pre-renewal) and after (post-renewal) the new program was implemented. Surveys were conducted between 14th August and 30th November 2017 (pre-renewal) and 9th February and 26th October 2018 (post-renewal) among cervical screening providers who attended education sessions related to the new guidelines. Preparedness was assessed in three areas: 1) level of comfort implementing the new guidelines (7 questions), 2) level of confidence in their ability to convey information about the new guidelines (9 questions) and 3) level of agreement regarding access to resources to support implementation (11 questions). Proportions were calculated for each question response and pre- and post-renewal periods compared using generalised linear models. Open-ended questions related to anticipated barriers and ways to overcome barriers were also included in the questionnaires. Compared to the pre-renewal period, a higher proportion of practitioners in the post-renewal period were more comfortable offering routine screening to women ≥25 years (p = 0.005) and more confident explaining the rationale for not screening before 25 years (p = 0.015); confident explaining a positive HPV 16/18 (p = 0.04) and HPV non 16/18(p = 0.013) test result and were comfortable with not referring women with a positive HPV non 16/18 test result and low grade/negative cytology for colposcopy (p = 0.01). A higher proportion of Victorian practitioners in the post-renewal period sample were also comfortable (p = 0.04) and confident (p = 0.015) recommending self-collection to under-screened women and agreed that self-collection is a reliable test (p = 0.003). The most commonly reported suggestion was to provide information, education and communication materials to both patients and practitioners. Compared to the pre-renewal period, practitioners in the post-renewal period were better prepared to implement the renewed screening program. Healthcare providers require further support to implement the self-collection pathway.
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.