ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Impact of mode of offer of self-sampling to people overdue cervical screening on screening participation: a randomised controlled trial.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Emotional, Cognitive, and Social Factors Influencing Romanian Women's Intention to Undergo Cervical Cancer Screening: A Mixed-Method Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Offering self-sampling to non-attenders increases cervical screening uptake, but the optimal approach for offering kits remains unclear. Methods: Randomised controlled trial offering self-sampling. 13 GP (general practitioner) practices were randomised (1:1) to flagging women ≥6-months overdue cervical screening so that they could be offered a self-sampling kit if they attended their GP for any reason (N = 6080 women), or no opportunistic offer (N = 6577 women). Additionally, never screened women and those overdue screening by 15- or 27-months were individually randomised (2:1:1) to usual care (no systematic offer), a letter inviting them to order a kit (letter), or being sent a self-sampling kit (kit). The study ran from April 2019 to March 2020. The primary outcome was returning a self-sampling kit, and the secondary outcome was any cervical screening. The International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) is 23940319. Findings: In opportunistic offer practices, 342 (5.6%) returned a self-sample compared with 1.9% (123/6577) in practices not randomised to opportunistic offering (adjusted risk difference 4.4% (95% CI: 2.8%-6.0%)). Half (234/449) of women offered self-sampling opportunistically returned a sample. Among 6400 women individually randomised to no systematic offer vs letter vs kit, 1.7% (54/3197), 4.8% (76/1587; difference relative to no systematic offer 3.1% 95% CI: 2.0-4.2%) and 12.3% (198/1616; difference relative to no systematic offer 10.5%, 95% CI: 8.9-12.2%), returned a self-sample (the primary outcome), respectively. These observed differences were maintained in the secondary outcome, any cervical screening. No adverse effects were reported. Interpretation: In-person offers were most effective, but only a small proportion of non-attenders received such an offer. Postal invitations without a kit were less effective. The secondary outcome suggests those screened by self-sampling would not have been screened otherwise and contribute to increased screening coverage. Funding: Cancer Research UKC8162/A16892 to PS (consumables), C8162/A29083 to PS (JR, AL), C8162/A25356 to PS (BN); National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS) ID: 36156 (AL); Intramural Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (RL).
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.