Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36497850›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Claire M Zammit, Nicola S Creagh, Tracey McDermott, Megan A Smith, Dorothy A Machalek, Chloe J Jennett, Khic-Houy Prang, Farhana Sultana, Claire E Nightingale, Nicole M Rankin and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Claire M ZammitCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3199-6715
Nicola S CreaghCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0908-5453
Tracey McDermottAustralian Centre for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
Megan A SmithThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW 2011, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0401-2653
Dorothy A MachalekThe Kirby Institute, Wallace Wurth Building, University of New South Wales Kensington, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Chloe J JennettThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW 2011, Australia.
Khic-Houy PrangCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
Farhana SultanaNational Cancer Screening Register, Telstra Health, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.
Claire E NightingaleCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4103-6240
Nicole M RankinCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
Margaret KelaherCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
Julia M L BrothertonCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Sydney · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AUTelstra (Australia) · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program transitioned from 2-yearly cytology-based to 5-yearly human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening, including a vaginal self-collection option. Until July 2022, this option was restricted to under- or never-screened people aged 30 years and older who refused a speculum exam. We investigated the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders involved in, or affected by, the initial implementation of the restricted self-collection pathway.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 49 stakeholders as part of the STakeholder Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were thematically analysed and coded to the Conceptual Framework for Implementation Outcomes.

resultsStakeholders viewed the introduction of self-collection as an exciting opportunity to provide under-screened people with an alternative to a speculum examination. Adoption in clinical practice, however, was impacted by a lack of clear communication and promotion to providers, and the limited number of laboratories accredited to process self-collected samples. Primary care providers tasked with communicating and offering self-collection described confusion about the availability, participant eligibility, pathology processes, and clinical management processes for self-collection. Regulatory delay in developing an agreed protocol to approve laboratory processing of self-collected swabs, and consequently initially having one laboratory nationally accredited to process samples, led to missed opportunities and misinformation regarding the pathway's availability.

conclusionsWhilst the introduction of self-collection was welcomed, clear communication from Government regarding setbacks in implementation and how to overcome these in practice were needed. As Australia moves to a policy of providing everyone eligible for screening the choice of self-collection, wider promotion to providers and eligible people, clarity around pathology processes and the scaling up of test availability, as well as timely education and communication of clinical management practice guidelines, are needed to ensure smoother program delivery in the future. Other countries implementing self-collection policies can learn from the implementation challenges faced by Australia.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAustraliaEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningQualitative Researchcancer preventioncervical screeningexperiencehealth servicesimplementation sciencepreventative healthprimary carequalitativeself-collectionself-samplingwomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID36497850
PMCPMC9739016
OpenAlexW4310231327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.