Trial reportPatient education and counseling2026
Promoting cervical cancer screening via a mailed HPV self-collection kit: Reactions from screeners and non-screeners.
Trial report in Patient education and counseling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04679675 (Self-Testing Options in the Era of Primary HPV Screening for Cervical Cancer), which is not on this 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.
Self-Testing Options in the Era of Primary HPV Screening for Cervical Cancer: the STEP Trial
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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMailed human papillomavirus self-collection (HPV-SC) kits improve cervical cancer screening adherence; however, not all respond to kit invitations. This qualitative study sought to understand reactions to HPV-SC kit invitation among screeners and non-screeners in the STEP trial, a pragmatic trial offering kits.
methodsKaiser Permanente Washington patients randomized to the STEP trial's kit intervention arms, received educational materials and were notified they would receive a kit in one week (direct mail) or given information on how to request a kit (opt-in). Materials highlighted cancer risk, screening importance, test differences (Pap, HPV), and what to expect with abnormal results. Based on their screening status 6 months post-randomization, two categories of patients were invited for focus groups: 1) screeners with negative kit results or clinician-performed test; 2) non-screeners. We oversampled non-white patients. Six online focus groups were conducted from May to June 2022 with 40 patients (29 screeners, 11 non-screeners). A facilitator asked about HPV and cervical cancer knowledge, reaction to the kit and educational materials, and screening preference (self- vs. clinician-collected). Field notes and transcripts were analyzed by five coders using iterative content analysis.
resultsParticipants desired more flexibility during the invitation process, preferring multiple methods (mail, patient portal, text, in-clinic distribution) and support services (website, nurse-staffed phone). Educational resources acknowledging different learning styles (print, diagrams, audio-visual) and for specific populations (LGBTQ, monogamous) were suggested. Participants recommended clinicians reinforce kit efficacy to encourage use. Trust in the kit and in the health care system were key to ensure comfort with self-collection.
conclusionMultiple, diverse outreach strategies are needed to engage patients in screening with this new modality. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Flexible engagement by the healthcare system with comprehensive educational materials inclusive of diverse populations, and provider encouragement are needed to build patients' trust in, comfort with, and use of HPV-SC tests.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04679675.
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.