Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41144190›Full record

ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2025

Rural women choose self-sampling over a pelvic exam for cervical cancer screening: a mixed-method study.

Timothy C Guetterman, Alexandra Vinson, Matthew Stack, Martha L Alves, Elizabeth Haro, Emma Alman, Butcher, Christelle El Khoury, Melissa DeJonckheere, Diane M Harper

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2025. 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. 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

10 authors.

Timothy C GuettermanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48104, USA.
Alexandra VinsonDepartment of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Matthew StackGenesee Health System, Flint, MI, USA.
Martha L AlvesDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48104, USA.
Elizabeth HaroDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48104, USA.
Emma Alman
ButcherDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48104, USA.
Christelle El KhouryDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48104, USA.
Melissa DeJonckheereDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48104, USA.
Diane M HarperDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48104, USA. harperdi@med.umich.edu.

Funding

XenograftP30CA046592 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Eric R. Fearon · 1988 to 2026
$178.2M
American Cancer Society PASD-RSG-23-1077156-01NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046592NCI NIH HHS P30CA046592
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBarriers to cervical cancer screening are significantly higher among US rural populations. To understand these barriers and explore potential remedies, we compare perceptions of screening exam techniques, pelvic exam vs. self-sampling, and how perceptions vary by participants' beliefs, physician characteristics, and known barriers among under-screened rural people in Michigan, United States.

methodsOur mixed-methods study explored experiences with a vaginal self-sampling technique in comparison to the memory of the most recent pelvic exam. We developed quantitative survey questions using Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) modules. We created the qualitative interview guide using Likert scales and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We provided vaginal self-sampling kits (HerSwab) to participants to try this new test modality. We used descriptive statistics and t tests to analyze quantitative data. We analyzed the interview responses thematically.

resultsOf the forty rural white women who shared their experiences of the two screening techniques, the pelvic exam technique had significantly worse negative ratings across all fourteen perceptions than the self-sampling technique, and the self-sampling technique had significantly higher positive ratings. Analysis of interviews revealed four themes that elaborated survey results: 1) preference for the self-sampling technique; 2) physical and emotional discomfort with the pelvic exam technique; 3) convenience of the self-sampling technique; and 4) empowerment through self-sampling.

conclusionsThe powerful negative perceptions of the pelvic exam may be why people do not participate in screening. The self-sampling cervical cancer screening technique offers a quick and easy method for screening that many prefer.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerGynecological ExaminationUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsAdultAgedFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMichiganMiddle AgedRural PopulationSurveys and QuestionnairesCervical cancer screeningPelvic examRural

Identifiers

PMID41144190
PMCPMC12630214

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.