ArticleBMJ open2022
Acceptability of extending HPV-based cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years: an interview study with women in England.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing key messages about extending cervical screening intervals.Patient education and counseling · 2022Trial
- Diabetes-related barriers to cancer screening in women with type 2 diabetes: A qualitative interview study.British journal of health psychology · 2026Article
- Transitioning from Cytology to HPV Test-Based Primary Cervical Screening in Canada: A Population-Based Survey of Women's Screening and Information Preferences.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Exploring the role of the oncology nurse in cervical cancer screening programs during times of transition.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2025Article
- Feasibility of incorporating the Pocket colposcope into nurse-led cervical cancer screening programs in Western Kenya.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening: Patient Perspectives on Transitioning to Primary High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing Alone.The Permanente journal · 2024Article
- Public acceptability and anticipated uptake of risk-stratified bowel cancer screening in the UK: An online survey.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Understanding the Preferences and Considerations of the Public Towards Risk-Stratified Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Insights From Think-Aloud Interviews Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Awareness and knowledge about HPV and primary HPV screening among women in Great Britain: An online population-based survey.Journal of medical screening · 2024Article
- Acceptability of deferring the start of cervical cancer screening to age 30 for women vaccinated against human papillomavirus.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- Implementation of risk stratification within bowel cancer screening: a community jury study exploring public acceptability and communication needs.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Understanding the Challenges of HPV-Based Cervical Screening: Development and Validation of HPV Testing and Self-Sampling Attitudes and Beliefs Scales.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- "A lot can happen in five years": Women's attitudes to extending cervical screening intervals.European journal of cancer care · 2022Article
- Article
- Ensuring a Successful Transition From Cytology to Human Papillomavirus-Based Primary Cervical Cancer Screening in Canada by Investigating the Psychosocial Correlates of Women's Intentions: Protocol for an Observational Study.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Assessing Canadian women's preferences for cervical cancer screening: A brief report.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe introduction of primary Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing in the National Health Service (NHS) Cervical Screening Programme in England means the screening interval for 25-49 years can be extended from 3 to 5 years. We explored women's responses to the proposed interval extension.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured phone/video interviews with 22 women aged 25-49 years. Participants were selected to vary in age, socioeconomics and screening history. We explored attitudes to the current 3-year interval, then acceptability of a 5-year interval. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using framework analysis.
resultsAttitudes to the current 3-year interval varied; some wanted more frequent screening, believing cancer develops quickly. Some participants worried about the proposed change; others trusted it was evidence based. Frequent questions concerned the rationale and safety of longer intervals, speed of cancer development, the possibility of HPV being missed or cell changes occurring between screens. Many participants felt reassured when the interval change was explained alongside the move to HPV primary screening, of which most had previously been unaware.
conclusionsCommunication of the interval change should be done in the context of broader information about HPV primary screening, emphasising that people who test negative for HPV are at lower risk of cell changes so can safely be screened every 5 years. The long time needed for HPV to develop into cervical cancer provides reassurance about safety, but it is important to be transparent that no screening test is perfect.
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.