Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42224174›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Incremental impact of community-delivered HPV self-sampling on screening uptake within an active outreach system: A quasi-experimental implementation study in rural Thailand.

Jiraporn Butta, Phanthitra Thonghoi, Tipamanee Kesakul, Amawasri Thoopthong, Wongsirirak Butdee, Somthawin Pirakittivorakul, Fuangfah Thongdara, Patchana Hengboriboonpong Jaidee, Manachai Yingklang

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. 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.

Jiraporn ButtaFaculty of Public Health, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand.
Phanthitra ThonghoiFaculty of Public Health, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand.
Tipamanee KesakulFaculty of Public Health, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand.
Amawasri ThoopthongFaculty of Public Health, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand.
Wongsirirak ButdeeFaculty of Public Health, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand.
Somthawin PirakittivorakulProkfa Sub-district Health Promotion Hospital, Chonburi, Thailand.
Fuangfah ThongdaraProkfa Sub-district Health Promotion Hospital, Chonburi, Thailand.
Patchana Hengboriboonpong JaideeFaculty of Public Health, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand.
Manachai YingklangFaculty of Public Health, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2085-3603

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThailand has still not achieved the cervical cancer screening coverage target set by the World Health Organization (WHO). Although HPV self-sampling has been introduced to reduce access barriers, delivery remains largely facility-based, requiring women to attend primary care units during working hours. Community-delivered approaches have been proposed as an alternative; however, evidence comparing strategies within the same service context remains limited. This study aimed to assess the incremental benefit of a community-delivered approach, incorporating structured workshops and same-day sample return, within an already active outreach system, compared with a facility-based approach with similar outreach support, on screening uptake; secondary outcomes included operational feasibility and acceptability.

methodsWe conducted a quasi-experimental comparative study in a rural subdistrict of Thailand. Eligible women aged 30-60 years were recruited from two villages and allocated at the village level to either a community-delivered approach (CD group) or a facility-based approach with active outreach (FB group). Screening uptake was defined as the return of a completed self-sampling kit and is presented using proportions and 95% confidence intervals. Feasibility and acceptability were also assessed descriptively using process indicators and participant-reported experiences.

resultsA total of 108 participants were enrolled, with 106 included in the primary analysis. Screening uptake was 52% (28/54; 95% CI: 42% to 61%) in the CD group and 35% (18/52; 95% CI: 26% to 45%) in the FB group. The observed absolute difference was 17% (95% CI: -1% to 34%). All returned samples were adequate for HPV testing. Participant-reported confidence, usability, and overall experience with self-sampling were favorable and similar across groups.

conclusionsHPV self-sampling was operationally feasible and acceptable under both delivery approaches in this rural Thai setting. Screening uptake was numerically higher in the community-delivered group; however, the confidence interval included no difference, indicating uncertainty in the direction and magnitude of effect. These findings are suggestive but inconclusive evidence. Further adequately powered studies with rigorous implementation evaluation are needed, particularly to optimize service delivery, including increasing flexibility in scheduling, strengthening implementation fidelity, and evaluating workforce and cost implications, to better determine effectiveness and scalability. Trials Registration: Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR): TCTR20241231010.

Indexed as

Human Papillomavirus VirusesMass ScreeningPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareRural PopulationSpecimen HandlingThailand

Identifiers

PMID42224174
PMCPMC13225424

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.