Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41309460›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Understanding preferences for self-sampling in a national cervical screening programme: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment.

Shabnam Thapa, Jennifer C Davies, Emma J Crosbie, Katherine Payne, Stuart Wright

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Shabnam ThapaNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK.
Jennifer C DaviesDivision of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK.
Emma J CrosbieDivision of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0284-8630
Katherine PayneManchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK.
Stuart WrightManchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK stuart.j.wright@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4064-7998

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP) currently involves a healthcare professional collecting a cervical sample in a healthcare setting. This method of screening has barriers associated with access to screening appointments and the poor acceptability of the speculum examination. Primary screening through HPV testing has led to the development of self-sampling screening methods including vaginal and urine self-sampling, with many UK studies comparing these screening methods with the current NHSCSP. It is not known what features of self-sampling influence individuals' preferences and cervical screening uptake. To understand these preferences, we plan to undertake a discrete choice experiment (DCE). This protocol aims to describe the steps taken to design the DCE and the proposed approach to fielding the DCE to identify preferences for different sampling approaches in cervical screening. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An online survey comprising a DCE was designed to understand preferences of individuals for self-sampling methods within the NHSCSP. Attributes and levels for the DCE were generated through an iterative process including a literature review of qualitative studies about self-sampling cervical screening methods, input from cervical screening clinical experts and a patient and public involvement group (n=6). A D-efficient design was used to create choice sets for the DCE survey. Regression-based analysis will be used to estimate the impact of each attribute and level on individual choices. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by The University of Manchester Proportionate Research Ethics Committee (2024-20767-37669). The results of the DCE will be submitted for publication in a relevant peer review journal and the results will be presented at national and international conferences. DATA STATEMENT: There are no data associated with this protocol. The data produced by this study and analysis scripts will be made available in a public repository following publication of the study.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningPapillomavirus InfectionsPatient PreferenceSelf CareSpecimen HandlingUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsFemaleHumansResearch DesignState MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomMass ScreeningPatient PreferenceUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID41309460
PMCPMC12666229

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.