ArticleBMC women's health2026
Women's preferences for cervical cancer screening methods: a discrete choice experiment in Estonia and France.
Article in BMC women's 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study explores women’s preferences for cervical cancer screening (CCS) in Estonia and France, particularly preferences for self-sampling (SS). Although many European countries have introduced organized CCS, screening behaviours still exhibit a strong social gradient, with CC disproportionately affecting populations facing barriers to access, such as low income, rural residence, migration status or low education. The WHO has set a goal of eliminating CC and has proposed different strategies of invitations, outreach campaigns and the introduction of SS as a potential lever to increase uptake.
methodsTo assess whether these CCS strategies align with women’s preferences, we conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in Estonia and France. Pooling our data (N = 4774), we used a two-stage decision-making framework; first, intervention preferences were assessed, and then the willingness to participate if preferred interventions were implemented was measured. We also conducted a heterogeneity analysis via latent class analysis. The DCE has three attributes: invitation methods, sampling methods (physician-based sampling or self-sampling), and awareness-raising campaigns. The results were analysed using a mixed multinomial logit model to capture heterogeneity in preferences and explore factors influencing CCS participation.
resultsThe results show that the implementation of SS would: 1) increase uptake among women facing geographical barriers to CCS, 2) help engage first-time screeners in a screening pathway and 3) possibly deter participation from women already engaged in their screening pathway if implemented as sole mean of screening.
conclusionsOur results thus advocate for tailored screening programs.
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.