Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34462004›Full record

ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2021

Cervical cancer screening using HPV tests on self-samples: attitudes and preferences of women participating in the VALHUDES study.

Hélène De Pauw, Gilbert Donders, Steven Weyers, Philippe De Sutter, Jean Doyen, Wiebren A A Tjalma, Davy Vanden Broeck, Eliana Peeters, Severien Van Keer, Alex Vorsters and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03064087 (Validation of Human Papillomavirus Assays and Collection Devices for HPV Testing on Self-samples and First-void Urine Samples), which is not on this map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03064087 active not recruitingnot on this map

Validation of Human Papillomavirus Assays and Collection Devices for HPV Testing on Self-samples and First-void Urine Samples (VALHUDES)

TypeobservationalSponsorMarc ArbynRan2017 to 2027Enrolled500ConditionsCervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 2/3ArmsColli-Pee, Multi-Collect Swab, Evalyn Brush, Qvintip, Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2025
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Acceptability of Self-Sampling for Cervical Screening in Ethnically Diverse Groups in Northwest England: A Focus Group Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Hélène De Pauw *Unit of Cancer Epidemiology, Belgian Cancer Centre, Sciensano, J. Wytsmanstreet 14, B1050, Brussels, Belgium.
Gilbert Donders *Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the General Regional Hospital Heilig Hart (RZ Tienen), Tienen, Belgium.
Steven WeyersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ghent University Hospital (UZ Ghent), Ghent, Belgium.
Philippe De SutterDepartment of Gynaecology & Oncology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel) - Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Jean DoyenDepartment Gynaecology-Obstetrics, Liège University Hospital (CHU Liège), Liège, Belgium.
Wiebren A A TjalmaMultidisciplinary Breast Clinic, Unit Gynaecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Antwerp University Hospital (UZA), Edegem, Belgium.
Davy Vanden BroeckLaboratory of Molecular Pathology, AML Sonic Healthcare, Antwerp, Belgium.
Eliana PeetersUnit of Cancer Epidemiology, Belgian Cancer Centre, Sciensano, J. Wytsmanstreet 14, B1050, Brussels, Belgium.
Severien Van KeerCentre for the Evaluation of Vaccination (CEV), Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute (VAXINFECTIO), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Antwerp, Belgium.
Alex VorstersCentre for the Evaluation of Vaccination (CEV), Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute (VAXINFECTIO), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Antwerp, Belgium.
Marc ArbynUnit of Cancer Epidemiology, Belgian Cancer Centre, Sciensano, J. Wytsmanstreet 14, B1050, Brussels, Belgium. marc.arbyn@sciensano.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7807-5908

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation of the European Commission, through the RISCC Network 847845
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterventions to reach women who do not participate regularly in screening may reduce the risk of cervical cancer. Self-collection of a vaginal specimen has been shown to increase participation. The relative clinical accuracy of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on first-void urine (with Colli-Pee) and on vaginal self-samples versus on cervical clinician-collected samples is being investigated in the VALHUDES trial. The current study assesses attitudes and experiences regarding self-sampling among women enrolled in VALHUDES.

methodsQuestionnaires from 515 women (age 25-64 years [N = 498]; < 25 [N = 10], age ≥ 65 [N = 3], enrolled between December 2017 - January 2020) referred to colposcopy because of previous cervical abnormalities and enrolled in VALHUDES (NCT03064087) were analysed.

resultsOf the 515 participants, nearly all women confirmed that self-sampling may help in reaching under-screened women (93%). Nevertheless, 44% of the participants stated before starting collection that a clinician-collected sample is more effective than a self-collected sample. After self-sampling, the large majority of women (> 95%) declared that instructions for self-collection were clear, that collection was easy, and that they were confident about having performed the procedure correctly, for both urine and vaginal collection. However, a proportion of women found self-sampling unpleasant (9.5% [49/515] for urine collection; 18.6% [96/515] and 15.5% [80/515] for vaginal sampling with cotton swabs or plastic brushes, respectively). For their next screening round, 57% would prefer self-sampling whereas 41% opted for collection by a clinician. Among women preferring self-sampling, 53% would choose for urine collection, 38% for vaginal self-collection and 9% had no preference. Age did not modify preferences.

conclusionWe conclude that both urine and vaginal self-sampling are well accepted by women, with a preference for urine sampling. Although the large majority of women are confident in their ability to perform self-sampling, four to five over ten women preferred specimen collection by a clinician.

trial registrationThe study VALHUDES was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT03064087 ).

Indexed as

AttitudesCervical cancerHPVHuman papillomavirusPreferencesScreeningSelf-samplingUrineVALHUDES

Identifiers

PMID34462004
PMCPMC8403820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.