ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
'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.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAustralia's human papillomavirus (HPV)-based National Cervical Screening Program guidelines state that anyone eligible for screening should be offered a choice of using self-collection or clinician collection for initial screening.
aimTo explore the awareness and experiences of women and people with a cervix who have been screened since this choice became available in July 2022.
methodsSemi-structured online or telephone interviews were conducted between February and May 2024 with 43 Victorian women and people with a cervix, aged 25-74 years. All participants self-reported completing a cervical screen within 12 months of our study. Interview data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed before being mapped to The Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Self-reported screening history was confirmed with de-identified data from the National Cancer Screening Register (NCSR) Victorian Raw Data Extract (November 2024).
resultsFewer than half (19, 44%) of those interviewed were given a choice at their most recent screen, with variation in how options were presented by healthcare providers. Participants felt they lacked awareness and knowledge to feel confident in their options. Most participants viewed having a choice as important and, even if they did not prefer self-collection for themselves, noted benefits for others. Some felt disappointed or angry about not having a choice, while others were happy to defer to their doctor. Relationships with, and the views of, healthcare providers strongly influenced decision-making. Participants reflected on potential advantages of self-collection if it could reduce the cost of appointments and be accessed in more flexible ways. Among the 38 participants who consented to screening history verification, the self-reported data showed reasonable accuracy (67%) against the NCSR.
conclusionDespite a clear policy directive for practitioners to offer a choice to all eligible individuals, many recent screeners were not offered the choice or lacked the knowledge, confidence and decision supports needed to make an informed choice. The choice of screening method appears strongly influenced by if, and how, options are presented by healthcare providers. A range of strategies are needed to ensure screeners feel empowered, supported and informed to make and carry out a real choice. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the public were involved in interviews. Findings were summarised and disseminated via a short report. A consumer advisory panel provided feedback on the content, readability and length of all patient-facing resources.
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.