ArticleBMC public health2026
Qualitative insights into the acceptability of self-collection for cervical screening amongst under- and never-screened groups in Australia.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSince 2022, Australia's National Cervical Screening Program has recommended that anyone eligible for cervical screening should be offered the choice of HPV testing on either a self-collected vaginal sample, or a clinician-collected sample. This choice provides the potential to address some screening barriers for under- and never-screened women and people with a cervix. In this qualitative study we aimed to understand the acceptability of self-collection for individuals from under-and never-screened groups, and its potential to improve equitable access to screening through the national program.
methodsFifty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted between October 2023-November 2024 with screen-eligible women and people with a cervix from the LGBTQ+ community, refugee backgrounds, Pacific Islander communities, and those with physical and/or sensory disability. Data were thematically analysed using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.
resultsMost participants had a positive view of self-collection and could see its benefits, particularly its capacity to increase privacy and autonomy. Self-collection was seen as beneficial for those who experienced issues related to body shyness and discomfort about being undressed in front of healthcare providers. Participants placed high value on having options for cervical screening; however, many preferred clinician-collection due to low self-efficacy in collecting a sample themselves and concerns about the accuracy of the test. Additionally, some participants with physical and/or sensory disabilities highlighted dexterity and/or mobility challenges that made self-collection difficult or the swab difficult to use. Participants agreed there was a need for community-tailored information sessions and broader campaigns about self-collection as many communities were still unaware of this option.
conclusionsWhile self-collection has the potential to expand screening accessibility and may offer individual benefits, increased awareness of its availability and attention to identified barriers are needed to ensure that everyone is given true choice in the way they screen.
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.