ArticleBMJ open2026
Women's preference for HPV self-sampling devices: a programme-embedded, large-scale paired comparative study within the cervical cancer screening programme in the Capital Region of Denmark.
Article in BMJ open, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo demonstrate women's preferences for three human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling devices.
designCross-sectional, programme-embedded paired comparative study with randomised sampling order within device pairs.
settingOrganised cervical cancer screening programme in the Capital Region of Denmark.
participants1760 women eligible for cervical cancer screening (April 2024 to May 2025), assigned to one of three groups: (1) Evalyn versus FLOQSwab (n=518), (2) Evalyn versus SensiGrip (n=657) and (3) FLOQSwab versus SensiGrip (n=585). OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: device preference. Secondary: sampling-experience (self-reported). Data were assessed with χ² tests for preference, logistic regression for predictor analysis and Wilcoxon signed-rank equivalence test with two one-sided test procedures to assess sampling experience.
resultsOverall, 95.7% rated HPV self-sampling a positive experience and 87.3% preferred HPV self-sampling in future screening. SensiGrip was preferred significantly over FLOQSwab (p<0.001), with participants rating ease of use and sampling certainty higher for SensiGrip. No significant differences in preference were observed between Evalyn and either alternative device in the primary analysis (p>0.05) although Evalyn scored higher in sampling certainty. Sampling order influenced preference in Evalyn comparisons. Prior experience with self-sampling, screening history and subcohort membership did not significantly influence device preference.
conclusionsOverall, participants rated self-sampling a positive experience. SensiGrip was preferred over FLOQSwab, while Evalyn demonstrated comparable overall acceptability to both alternative devices in the primary implementation-focused analysis. These findings suggest that device replacement would be acceptable from a screening participation perspective, particularly a shift from FLOQSwab to SensiGrip.
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.