ArticleCancer medicine2024
A qualitative assessment of the acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling and informational materials among diverse populations.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cervical Cancer Screening Preferences in Transgender, Nonbinary, and Gender-diverse Patients.O&G open · 2026Article
- Preferences of High-Risk HPV-Based Cervical Cancer Screening among Transgender Men and Gender Diverse People Assigned Female at Birth: A Cross-Sectional Study at a Single Academic Center.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Improving Patient Education Materials for HPV Self-Collection: Insights from Women at High Risk of Developing Cervical Cancer.Cancer management and research · 2025Article
- A qualitative assessment of the acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling and informational materials among diverse populations.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDisparities in cervical cancer screening rates among marginalized groups is a driver of inequalities in cervical cancer. Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is a newly emerging alternative to clinician-performed testing to screen for cervical cancer, and has high potential to reduce screening barriers in under-screened and marginalized groups. We study the acceptability in of HPV self-sampling and informational materials among Black/African American, Hispanic/Spanish speaking, American Indian/Alaska Native and transgender/nonbinary populations.
methodsWe conducted qualitative interviews with patients, ages 30-65, who were Black/African American, Hispanic, American Indian, and/or transgender/nonbinary individuals assigned female at birth. Telephone interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. Patients did not complete the test, rather were asked about the attractiveness, comprehensibility, and acceptability of the HPV self-test, instructions, and messaging.
resultsAmong 23 completed interviews (5 American Indian/Alaska Native, 7 Hispanic [2 bilingual, 5 Spanish-speaking], 5 Black/African American, and 6 transgender/nonbinary), patients from all groups thought the test was straightforward and convenient, and they would complete the test at home or in clinic. The transgender/nonbinary patients preferred at-home testing. American Indian and transgender/nonbinary patients liked that the test might avoid pain, discomfort, and invasiveness. All patients liked the letter and instructions. All groups had specific suggestions for making the materials more culturally acceptable.
conclusionsThe HPV self-test and the instructions and materials for use were acceptable for a diverse group of patients. Tailored outreach and messaging should be considered to reduce screening disparities among groups that have been historically underserved by the medical system.
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.