Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39383889›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical screening2025

Attitudes towards being offered a choice of self-sampling or clinician sampling for cervical screening: A cross-sectional survey of women taking part in a clinical validation of HPV self-collection devices.

Laura Marlow, Hannah Drysdale, Jo Waller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical screening, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Urine human papillomavirus testing for cervical screening in a UK general screening population: a diagnostic test accuracy study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Recommendations for a Communication Strategy to Support Informed Decision-Making About Self or Clinician Sampling for Cervical Screening in the UK: Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Laura MarlowCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1709-2397
Hannah DrysdaleSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4307-6166
Jo WallerCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4025-9132

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ObjectivesPrimary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in cervical screening offers the opportunity for women to be given a choice between HPV self-sampling and traditional clinician screening. This study assessed attitudes towards a choice and anticipated future preference among women who had collected a vaginal self-sample alongside their usual cervical screen.SettingThirty-eight general practices across five areas in England.MethodsOverall, 2323 women (24-65 years; response rate: 48%) completed a survey after collecting a self-sample and having a clinician screen at their GP practice. We asked which test they preferred and assessed attitudes to being offered a choice. We explored age, education, ethnicity and screening experience as predictors of attitudes towards a choice and anticipated future choice.ResultsMost participants felt they would like a choice between self-sampling and clinician screening (85%) and thought this would improve screening for them (72%). However, 23% felt it would be difficult to choose, 15% would worry about making a choice, and nearly half would prefer a recommendation (48%). Compared with women with degree-level education, those with fewer qualifications were more likely to say they would worry about having a choice or would not want a choice (p < 0.001). The majority said they would choose to self-sample at home if offered a choice in the future (69%; n = 1602/2320).ConclusionsSelf-sampling is likely to be popular, but offering a choice could cause worry for some people and many would prefer a recommendation. Supporting people to make a choice will be important, particularly for those with lower levels of education.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerPapillomavirus InfectionsSpecimen HandlingUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPapillomaviridaeSelf CareSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultcancer screeningdecision-makingHPVhuman papillomaviruspublic attitudes

Identifiers

PMID39383889
PMCPMC12106923

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.