ArticleBMJ public health2026
Understanding knowledge, beliefs, values and barriers towards cervical cancer screening and self-sampling amongst migrant Muslim women in Southwest London: an in-depth qualitative interview study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Intro: Novel screening methods are needed to increase access to cervical screening, and migrant Muslim women in the UK are particularly at risk of screening non-attendance. In anticipation of the introduction of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) self-sampling into the UK programme, this study explored views of migrant Muslim women in southwest London on understanding of cervical screening, barriers and motivators to engagement and acceptability of vaginal self-sampling. Methods: Qualitative in-depth semi-structured individual interviews were carried out via MS Teams video call of 18 Muslim migrant women, with purposive and snowball recruitment. Framework analysis was carried out using NVivo 14 and coding matrix developed using MS Excel. Results: Migrant Muslim women felt that self-sampling for hrHPV was likely acceptable and beneficial for some women in their community. Only 44% preferred self-sampling over healthcare worker (HCW)-taken samples because of concerns over technique and inadequate results. There was a lack of understanding of the screening programme, role of HPV and cultural taboo of sexual activity outside of marriage. These barriers may be mitigated by evidence-based information in their own language by a trusted HCW or community champion. Taking their own respiratory swabs during the COVID-19 pandemic made participants more open-minded to self-sampling. Conclusions: Low vaginal self-sampling is acceptable to migrant Muslim women; however, over half may still prefer HCW-taken samples. Key strategies for overcoming barriers to self-sampling are prioritising linguistically appropriate materials, partnership with community leaders, flexible access points to screening and confidential modes of result delivery.
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.