Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38785177›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2024

Practitioners support and intention to adopt universal access to self-collection in Australia's National Cervical Screening Program.

Nicola Stephanie Creagh, Tessa Saunders, Julia Brotherton, Jane Hocking, Amalia Karahalios, Marion Saville, Megan Smith, Claire Nightingale

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. 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
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Accuracy of Self-Reported Cervical Screening Status Among Pregnant Women.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Nicola Stephanie CreaghCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0908-5453
Tessa SaundersCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Julia BrothertonCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jane HockingCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Amalia KarahaliosCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Marion SavilleAustralian Centre for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.
Megan SmithThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Claire NightingaleCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

Mid-Career Research Fellowship from the Victorian Government, acting through the Victorian Cancer AgencyNHMRC Postgraduate scholarshipVictorian Government, acting through the Victorian Cancer Agency
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePrimary care practitioners are crucial to engaging people in Australia's national cervical screening program. From July 2022, practitioners have been able to offer all screen-eligible people the choice to collect their own self-collected sample; an option introduced to increase equity. This study explored how practitioners are intending to incorporate universal access to self-collection into their clinical care.

methodsSemi-structed interviews with 27 general practitioners, nurses, and practice managers from 10 practices in Victoria, Australia conducted between May and August 2022. Interviews were deductively coded, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The Diffusion of Innovations theory was used to categorise intention to provide self-collection.

resultsParticipants were supportive of universal access to self-collection, citing benefits for screen-eligible people and that it overcame the limited adaptability of the previous policy. Most participants' practices (n = 7, 70%) had implemented or had plans to offer the option for self-collection to all. Participants deliberating whether to provide universal access to self-collection held concerns about the correct performance of the self-test and the perceived loss of opportunity to perform a pelvic examination. Limited time to change practice-level processes and competing demands within consultations were anticipated as implementation barriers.

conclusionsThe extent to which self-collection can promote equity within the program will be limited without wide-spread adoption by practitioners. Communication and education that addresses concerns of practitioners, along with targeted implementation support, will be critical to ensuring that self-collection can increase participation and Australia's progression towards elimination of cervical cancer.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaFemaleHumansIntentionMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSpecimen HandlingVictoriacervical cancercervical screeninghealthcare providersimplementation researchpractitionersqualitativeself‐collectionself‐sampling

Identifiers

PMID38785177
PMCPMC11117194

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.