Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38781145›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2024

Patient preference and acceptability of self-sampling for cervical screening in colposcopy clinic attenders: A cross-sectional semi-structured survey.

Sophie Webb, Nafeesa Mat Ali, Amy Sawyer, David J Clark, Megan A Brown, Yolanda Augustin, Yin Ling Woo, Su Pei Khoo, Sally Hargreaves, Henry M Staines and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Sophie WebbClinical Academic Group in Institute for Infection & Immunity, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9336-2913
Nafeesa Mat AliClinical Academic Group in Institute for Infection & Immunity, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4705-3009
Amy SawyerSt George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
David J ClarkClinical Academic Group in Institute for Infection & Immunity, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3677-0034
Megan A BrownClinical Academic Group in Institute for Infection & Immunity, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3028-2251
Yolanda AugustinClinical Academic Group in Institute for Infection & Immunity, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Yin Ling WooFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1742-1066
Su Pei KhooFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4129-3466
Sally HargreavesClinical Academic Group in Institute for Infection & Immunity, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Henry M StainesClinical Academic Group in Institute for Infection & Immunity, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5890-3040
Sanjeev KrishnaClinical Academic Group in Institute for Infection & Immunity, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Kevin HayesClinical Academic Group in Institute for Infection & Immunity, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3150-4335

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Low vaginal self-sampling has been pioneered as an important development to improve uptake of cervical screening globally. Limited research is available in specific patient groups in the UK exploring views around self-sampling to detect high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA. Therefore, we explored patient views to support development of a novel point-of-care self-sampling cervical cancer screening device, by undertaking a cross-sectional semi-structured questionnaire survey to explore preferences, acceptability, barriers and facilitators around self-sampling. Patients attending a colposcopy clinic, 25-64 years old, were invited to participate after having carried out a low vaginal self-sample using a regular flocked swab. Participants self-completed an anonymous 12-point questionnaire. Quantitative data were analysed in MS Excel and Graphpad Prism, and qualitative data with Nvivo. We recruited 274 patients with a questionnaire response rate of 76%. Acceptability of self-sampling was high (95%, n = 187/197; Cronbachs-α = 0.778). Participants were asked their choice of future screening method: a) low vaginal self-sampling, b) healthcare professional collected vaginal swab, c) cervical brush sample with healthcare professional speculum examination, or d) no preference. Preferences were: a) 37% (n = 74/198), b) 19% (n = 37/198); c) 9% (n = 17/198), and d) 35% (n = 70/198), showing no single option as a strong preference. Key motivators were: Test simplicity (90%, n = 170/190), speed (81%, n = 153/190) and less pain (65%, n = 123/190). Barriers included lack of confidence taking the sample (53%, n = 10/19), resulting in preference for a healthcare professional sample (47%, n = 9/19). Whilst self-sampling showed high acceptability, lack of strong preference for screening method may reflect that respondents attending colposcopy are already engaged with screening and have differing perception of cervical cancer risk. This group appear less likely to 'switch' to self-sampling, and it may be better targeted within primary and community care, focusing on under-screened populations. Any shift in this paradigm in the UK requires comprehensive education and support for patients and providers.

Identifiers

PMID38781145
PMCPMC11115198

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.