Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37958337›Full record

ArticleCancers2023

Acceptability to Healthcare Professionals of Home-Based HPV Self-Sampling for Cervical Screening: A French Qualitative Study Conducted in an Area with Low Access to Health Services.

Johane Le Goff, Anne-Sophie Le Duc-Banaszuk, Caroline Lefeuvre, Adeline Pivert, Alexandra Ducancelle, Hélène De Pauw, Marc Arbyn, Aubeline Vinay, Franck Rexand-Galais

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Johane Le GoffUniversity of Angers, CLIPSY, SFR CONFLUENCES, F-49000 Angers, France.
Anne-Sophie Le Duc-BanaszukPays de la Loire Regional Cancer Screening Coordination Center (CRCDC Pays de La Loire), F-49000 Angers, France.
Caroline LefeuvreUniversity of Angers, CHU Angers, HIFIH, SFR ICAT, F-49000 Angers, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4934-5926
Adeline PivertUniversity of Angers, CHU Angers, HIFIH, SFR ICAT, F-49000 Angers, France.
Alexandra DucancelleUniversity of Angers, CHU Angers, HIFIH, SFR ICAT, F-49000 Angers, France.
Hélène De PauwCancer Epidemiology Unit, Belgian Cancer Center, Sciensano, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
Marc ArbynCancer Epidemiology Unit, Belgian Cancer Center, Sciensano, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
Aubeline VinayUniversity of Angers, CLIPSY, SFR CONFLUENCES, F-49000 Angers, France.
Franck Rexand-GalaisUniversity of Angers, CLIPSY, SFR CONFLUENCES, F-49000 Angers, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6044-3933
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers · FRUniversité d'Angers · FRGhent University · BESciensano (Belgium) · BE

Funding

European Commission 847845French National Cancer Institute 2021-158 ; INCA_16317
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-sampling may improve participation in cervical cancer secondary prevention programs by women who do not respond or respond irregularly when invited to contact a health professional for the collection of a cervical specimen. It could also help resolve access problems in areas with a low physician density. The present qualitative study examined barriers to screening, effective screening strategies, and the advantages and disadvantages of sending women urine or vaginal self-sampling kits in two medically underserved administrative departments in France (Mayenne and Sarthe) showing low cervical screening coverage. As part of the CapU4 randomized trial, a team of psychologists investigated the attitudes and experiences of 59 healthcare professionals (gynecologists, general practitioners, and midwives) through semi-structured interviews. Results indicated that health professionals believe that self-sampling may address the issues of low physician density and underscreening by removing logistical, organizational, financial, and psychological obstacles. They confirmed trust in the use of vaginal self-sampling, with urine self-sampling as an alternative solution (e.g., for women with vaginismus). The health professionals also identified several limitations of the self-sampling kit that will need to be addressed in future screening campaigns (incomplete kit, complex instructions, poor anatomical knowledge, and obesity).

Indexed as

cancer screening strategiescervical cancerhealth professionalslow physician densitysemi-structured interviewunderscreened womenurine self-samplingvaginal self-sampling

Identifiers

PMID37958337
PMCPMC10648237
OpenAlexW4387971518

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.