ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2026
How would Australian women and people with a cervix like to access self-collection for cervical screening? Screening preferences from a national survey.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 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.
- Access to cervical screening in Australian general practices: a cross-sectional study using a 'secret shopper' approach.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn Australia, cervical screening is usually offered face-to-face through primary care. As self-collection offers flexibility in how and where screening can be accessed, we assessed participant preferences for flexible screening models.
methodsWe recruited women and people with a cervix aged 24-74 years into a national survey (December 2023-April 2024) via a paid Meta campaign and community networks. Sociodemographic factors associated with a preference for appointment- or non-appointment-based models were assessed using logistic regression, stratified by age, < 50 and ≥ 50 years.
resultsAmong 9,586 respondents, the median age was 41 years, 67.9% lived in a major city, 82.5% were born in Australia, and 62.6% screened regularly. Most (82.6%) viewed flexible options for accessing screening as very important/important. Respondents favored non-appointment-based compared to appointment-based models, with 53.5% of those < 50 (n = 4,842) and 49.5% of those ≥ 50 (n = 1,257) preferring to receive a swab in the mail when due. Non-appointment-based models were preferred by participants aged < 50 and ≥ 50 years who were never-screened (adjOR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.18-1.96, p = 0.001; adjOR = 2.91, 95% CI = 1.67-5.09, p < 0.001), irregular screeners (adjOR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.36-1.85, p < 0.001; adjOR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.17-1.98, p = 0.002) and recently eligible for screening (adjOR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.08-2.50, p = 0.02) compared to regular screeners. Convenience was the most common reason for participants' preferred screening model (87.4% non-appointment-based; 55.1% appointment-based).
conclusionFlexibility in how cervical screening can be accessed appeals to many screen-eligible people. Further research trialing different models assessing screening uptake and clinical pathways to follow-up care is needed.
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.