Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41801968›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Experiences of HPV self-collection among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and people with a cervix.

Louise E Mitchell, Emily Phillips, Chloe J Jennett, Claire Bavor, Tessa Saunders, Claire Nightingale, Megan A Smith, Lisa J Whop, Screen Your Way Investigator Team

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cervical Cancer Elimination Must Centre Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Louise E MitchellYardhura Walani, National Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Wellbeing Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2114-1577
Emily PhillipsYardhura Walani, National Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Wellbeing Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Chloe J JennettSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Claire BavorEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7981-7878
Tessa SaundersEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Claire NightingaleEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Megan A SmithSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lisa J WhopYardhura Walani, National Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Wellbeing Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Screen Your Way Investigator Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since July 2022, Australian guidelines have recommended that anyone eligible for cervical screening be offered a choice between using a self-collected vaginal sample or a clinician-collected cervical sample for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing. This study explored cervical screening among 555 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and people with a cervix, 261 who had screened since the policy change ('recently screened'). Participants were recruited for an online survey between December-2023 and April-2024. Over half of recently screened participants were offered a choice of collection methods (n = 151, 58%). Of those offered the choice, 67% chose to screen using self-collection (n = 101). In total, 46% (n = 118) of recently screened participants used self-collection, either themselves at home (n = 41, 35%) or the clinic (n = 48, 41%) or assisted by a healthcare provider without a speculum (n = 29, 24%). Among those who collected their own sample (n = 89), the main reasons were it was less embarrassing, they felt in control of their body, and it was less scary. However, only 55% of these participants felt they had enough information to make an informed decision between collection methods. Over half of recently screened participants reported having a clinician-collected sample with a speculum (n = 133, 51%). The majority were not offered a choice of collection method (61%, n = 81), however 38% (n = 50) were and chose a clinician-collected sample. The main reasons for choosing a clinician-collected sample included always having had it done by a healthcare provider, wanting the healthcare provider to have a look or believing the healthcare provider would collect a better sample. This study highlights a preference for HPV self-collection among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and people with a cervix, including those who already participate in cervical screening. It reinforces the importance of offering all eligible participants a choice of collection methods and supporting informed decision-making.

Indexed as

Cervix UteriHuman Papillomavirus VirusesPapillomavirus InfectionsSpecimen HandlingUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAustraliaAustralian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPapillomaviridaeSurveys and QuestionnairesVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID41801968
PMCPMC12970916

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.