Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41816861›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical screening2026

Acceptability of, and preference for, human papillomavirus self-sampling for physically Disabled women: A cross-sectional survey.

Emma Kemp, Julius Sim, Carolyn A Chew-Graham, Andrew Gordon Finney, Charlotte Harper, Laura Marlow, Samantha Renke, Katie Wright-Bevans, Susan M Sherman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical screening, 2026. 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

9 authors.

Emma KempSchool of Psychology, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7037-2190
Julius SimSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1816-1676
Carolyn A Chew-GrahamSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9722-9981
Andrew Gordon FinneySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7353-7480
Charlotte HarperSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, UK.ORCID 0009-0001-9616-9972
Laura MarlowCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1709-2397
Samantha RenkeSamantha Renke Official Ltd, London, UK.
Katie Wright-BevansSchool of Psychology, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1377-9047
Susan M ShermanSchool of Psychology, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6708-3398

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundPhysically Disabled women face multiple barriers to cervical screening, contributing to lower uptake and increased health inequalities. Human papillomavirus self-sampling has been shown to increase screening participation in under-screened populations, but little is known about its acceptability for Disabled women.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted with 1493 UK-based participants who identified as having a physical disability, impairment, condition, or difference that makes cervical screening difficult or impossible. Participants completed questions on the acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling, attitudes and beliefs relating to self-sampling, and future screening preferences. Descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression were used to analyse responses.ResultsMost participants reported that they would be able to carry out self-sampling themselves (63.3%) and would be willing for a healthcare professional to use a self-sampling kit on their behalf (59.1%). Many (70.5%) had concerns about not performing the test correctly. Around half (53.0%) would prefer self-sampling at home if offered a screening choice. Women who had never attended screening, or who had delayed/missed appointments, were significantly more likely to prefer self-sampling (odds ratios 13.11 and 5.25, respectively) than women who had always attended. Approximately a fifth of participants (18.7%) would prefer a non-speculum clinician-taken test.ConclusionHuman papillomavirus self-sampling was acceptable to many physically Disabled women and preferred over conventional screening, particularly among those who had delayed/missed screening or never attended. Implementation should include tailored accessible instructions to support human papillomavirus self-sampling, disability-informed clinical support, and consideration of non-speculum clinician-taken samples to ensure equitable access and reduce inequalities in cervical screening.

Indexed as

Human Papillomavirus VirusesPapillomavirus InfectionsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePersons with DisabilitiesSelf CareSpecimen HandlingUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesVaginal Smearscervical screeningHuman papillomavirus self-samplinginequalitiesphysical disabilitywomen's health

Identifiers

PMID41816861
PMCPMC13490699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.