Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40686350›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical screening2026

Investigating the acceptability of cervical screening, using conventional clinician-taken cervical samples or urine self-sampling, at 6 weeks postnatal: A cross-sectional questionnaire.

Victoria Cullimore, Rebecca Newhouse, Holly Baker-Rand, Kim Chu, Sudha Sundar, Emma J Crosbie, Lorna McWilliams, Jo Morrison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical screening, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Comparison of Cervical Screening at 6- and 12-Weeks Postnatal: A Paired-Sample Feasibility Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    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.

Victoria CullimoreDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0966-0964
Rebecca NewhouseDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3162-2438
Holly Baker-RandDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK.ORCID 0009-0005-9301-6929
Kim ChuWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0006-0692-1451
Sudha SundarCancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5843-3015
Emma J CrosbieCancer Prevention & Early Detection Research, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0284-8630
Lorna McWilliamsManchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6414-2732
Jo MorrisonDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0000-520X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ObjectivesUnited Kingdom (UK) guidelines recommend delaying cervical screening due during pregnancy to 12 weeks postnatal, despite a lack of supporting evidence. This questionnaire-based study aimed to determine the feasibility of a clinical study of cervical screening and urine self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) at 6 weeks postnatal, as pilot work suggested this would improve uptake, if offered at the routine postnatal check-up.MethodsFemales who were pregnant/recently pregnant were invited to participate in a web-based questionnaire. Questions assessed acceptability of postnatal cervical screening at 6 weeks postnatal, analysed with chi-square, Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney tests. Free-text responses were coded using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) to conduct a qualitative content analysis.ResultsAmong the 454 participants, 266 (58.6%) would be more likely to undergo cervical screening if offered at 6 weeks postnatal, and an even higher proportion expressed increased willingness if urine self-sampling were offered (

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningPapillomavirus InfectionsPatient Acceptance of Health CareUrine Specimen CollectionUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultacceptabilityCervical screeningHPV testingmixed methodspostnatalpregnancyself-sampling

Identifiers

PMID40686350
PMCPMC12923629

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.