ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Recommendations for a Communication Strategy to Support Informed Decision-Making About Self or Clinician Sampling for Cervical Screening in the UK: Qualitative Study.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promoting cervical cancer screening via a mailed HPV self-collection kit: Reactions from screeners and non-screeners.Patient education and counseling · 2026Trial
- 'Why Didn't I Get That Choice?': A Qualitative Exploration of How Cervical Screening Choices Are Understood and Experienced by Screen-Eligible People in Australia, Two Years After Self-Collection Became an Option for All.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCervical screening for high-risk Human Papillomavirus subtypes is offered to those eligible in the UK via the NHS cervical screening programmes. However, uptake of cervical screening continues to remain below the national target of 80%. Groups less likely to participate include people from low socioeconomic groups, ethnic minority backgrounds, younger/older age and/or LGBTQ group identity. The cervical screening-eligible population could soon, for the first time in the UK, have a choice of mode between clinician taken or self-sampling.
aimsTo understand information and decision-support needs of diverse cervical screening-eligible individuals when presented with a choice of cervical screening mode and develop recommendations for a communication strategy to support informed decision-making.
methodsQualitative co-production explored communication preferences and decision-support needs in a diverse sample of cervical screening-eligible individuals using semi-structured interviews with individuals eligible for cervical screening (n = 30) and stakeholders (n = 23). Interviews were transcribed, thematically analysed and mapped to behavioural and decision-making theories to inform a communication strategy for offering choice in cervical screening mode in the UK.
resultsFour main themes across both participant groups were identified: misunderstanding of clinician screening, attitudes towards choice, communication launch preferences and decision-support needs. Logic models to inform a communication strategy in preparation for the future launch of choice in cervical screening mode in the UK were developed. IMPLICATIONS: The communication launch strategy can inform interventions to support informed decision-making if HPV self-sampling is incorporated into UK cervical screening programmes. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two public partners were involved in the study from inception to completion. They advised on recruitment, participant facing documents and were involved in analysis.
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.