SynthesisBMC public health2026
What are the views and experiences of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling for cervical screening in high-income countries? A qualitative systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Convenience-anxiety Paradox: Carcinophobia and Screening Misconceptions in Minimally Supported Human Papillomavirus Self-sampling.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorldwide, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women. Screening reduces cervical cancer mortality through detection of early-stage cancers and identification and treatment of precancers. Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling is a novel addition to clinician-collected sampling that may help increase screening uptake. This systematic review aimed to assess the views and experiences of HPV self-sampling in high-income countries populations at varying stages of self-sampling implementation.
methodsSystematic searches were conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL in April 2024. Qualitative and mixed-methods studies were included. The findings were mapped to the specific domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Study quality was assessed using the qualitative CASP checklist.
findingsThirty-six studies were included. The review identified 19 sub-categories within the TDF (13 initial domains and 6 subcategories in the "environmental context and resources domain"). The most commonly identified themes, reflecting both positive and negative views and experiences of self-sampling, related to the following TDF categories: "knowledge"; "skills"; "beliefs about capabilities" (concerns about performing the self-test correctly); "beliefs about consequences" (concerns about test reliability); "intentions"; "social influences" (religion, cultural beliefs); "emotions" (fear, embarrassment) and "environmental context and resources" (autonomy, privacy, convenience). In the latter, previous negative experiences with procedures performed by providers were often reported, enhancing the interest for self-sampling. DISCUSSION: The findings can inform and help to adapt or modify the implementation of HPV self-sampling by anticipating the needs of and challenges faced by the eligible populations. Clear instructions on how to perform the test should be provided. While the findings suggest that providing multiple methods for accessing the kit (e.g., by mail or in clinics) may be optimal, further research is needed to assess feasibility.
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.