Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34558035›Full record

ReviewThe patient2022

Preferences and Experiences Regarding the Use of the Self-Sampling Device in hrHPV Screening for Cervical Cancer.

Marjolein Dieleman, Jolien de Waard, G Bea A Wisman, Ed Schuuring, Martha D Esajas, Karin M Vermeulen, Geertruida H de Bock

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The patient, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Marjolein Dieleman *Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Huispostcode FA40, PO BOX 30 001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0856-9491
Jolien de Waard *Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0191-9225
G Bea A WismanDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4830-3401
Ed SchuuringDepartment of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3655-143X
Martha D EsajasDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0396-3120
Karin M VermeulenDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Huispostcode FA40, PO BOX 30 001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9257-2791
Geertruida H de BockDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Huispostcode FA40, PO BOX 30 001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. g.h.de.bock@umcg.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-3104-4471

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo improve participation in the Dutch cervical cancer screening, a self-sampling device (SSD) was introduced in 2017 into the Dutch population-based screening programme (PBS) for the early detection of cervical cancer. The aim of this study was to gather potential preferences and experiences that might influence a woman's decision to use the SSD in the Dutch PBS.

methodsA scoping review was performed in the PubMed database. Studies that assessed preferences and experiences of women regarding the SSD were included, and preferences and experiences were extracted. In addition, in a qualitative study, the list of potential preferences and experiences specific for the Dutch PBS was extended based on semi-structured interviews with SSD users as well as non-SSD users who recently participated in the PBS, analysed in a structured manner by translating full sentences to key words.

resultsNinety-eight studies were included in the scoping review and 16 interviews were performed. Frequently mentioned reasons for using the SSD, in both the interviews and the literature, were practicality and comfort. Frequently mentioned reasons for not using the SSD were fear of not performing the SSD procedure correctly and doubts on whether the results of the high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) test will be reliable. A new positive experience elicited in the interviews was accessibility. Negative preferences and experiences were not being aware the SSD was an option, and the inconvenience that after an hrHPV-positive test result of the SSD, an additional smear test at the GP is necessary.

conclusionSeveral preferences and experiences play a role in the choice whether or not to use the SSD. Based on the currently found preferences and experiences, an app will be developed in order to assess which of these are the most important for women participating in the Dutch population-based cervical screening programme.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPapillomaviridae

Identifiers

PMID34558035
PMCPMC8866331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.