Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41665700›Full record

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.

Claire Bavor, Chloe Jennett, Emily Phillips, Louise Mitchell, Tessa Saunders, Lisa Whop, Angela Kelly-Hanku, Deborah Bateson, Julia M L Brotherton, Megan A Smith and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

11 authors.

Claire BavorEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. c.bavor@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7981-7878
Chloe JennettCancer Elimination Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Emily PhillipsYardhura Walani, National Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Wellbeing Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Louise MitchellYardhura Walani, National Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Wellbeing Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Tessa SaundersEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Lisa WhopYardhura Walani, National Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Wellbeing Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Angela Kelly-HankuKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Deborah BatesonSydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Julia M L BrothertonEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Megan A SmithCancer Elimination Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Claire NightingaleEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council GNT2009360National Health and Medical Research Council GNT2015178National Health and Medical Research Council GNT2030732National Health and Medical Research Council GNT2034406Victorian Cancer Agency MCRF21039
6 · The paper itself

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

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningPatient PreferenceSpecimen HandlingUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedAustraliaFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultCervical cancerCervical screeningHPVModels of screeningSelf-collectionSelf-sampling

Identifiers

PMID41665700
PMCPMC12891099

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.