Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42424363›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Factors associated with women's choice for mode of cervical sampling in future cervical cancer screening.

Natalija Berza, Jana Zodzika, Anda Kivite-Urtane, Alise Curkste, Ilva Pole, Mari Nygard, Kersti Parna, Anneli Uuskula

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

8 authors.

Natalija BerzaInstitute of Public Health, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9541-1045
Jana ZodzikaInstitute of Public Health, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia.
Anda Kivite-UrtaneInstitute of Public Health, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia.
Alise CurksteInstitute of Public Health, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia.
Ilva PoleRiga East University Hospital, Riga, Latvia.
Mari NygardCancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Kersti ParnaInstitute of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Anneli UuskulaInstitute of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer (CC), primarily caused by persistent high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection, remains a major public health challenge, with Latvia experiencing substantially higher incidence and mortality rates than the European average. HR-HPV self-sampling is an effective and acceptable screening method, yet some women continue to prefer clinician-collected sampling. Evidence on factors associated with reluctance to adopt self-sampling in the Baltic region is limited. This study examined demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, and health-related characteristics linked to women's preferences for future cervical cancer screening modalities. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in Latvia between February 2021 and April 2022. Women attending general practitioners or the Colposcopy Unit of Riga East University Hospital were invited to perform unsupervised HR-HPV self-sampling using written and visual instructions, followed by a structured questionnaire. Collected data included demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, health status, health behaviours, emotional responses to self-sampling, and preferred sampling modality for the next screening round. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were used to assess differences in emotional responses and preferences. Factors associated with preferred sampling modality were identified through univariate and multivariate multinomial logistic regression. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

resultsA total of 1,217 women were included. Overall, 45.9% preferred clinician-collected cervical sampling, 42.6% preferred self-sampling, and 11.5% expressed no clear preference. Women who preferred self-sampling reported significantly lower embarrassment and discomfort during the procedure (p < 0.001). Most participants expressed positive emotional responses. The main reason for preferring clinician-collected sampling (81.0%) was a lack of confidence in performing self-sampling correctly. Multivariate analysis showed a higher preference for clinician-collection among women recruited from colposcopy settings and those with more recent gynecological visits, whereas former or occasional smokers were less likely to prefer clinician collection. Higher BMI (≥25) and non-Latvian nationality were associated with indecision regarding future sampling preference.

conclusionHR-HPV self-sampling was generally well accepted and may help engage women less likely to attend traditional screening. Preference for clinician-collection was shaped mainly by medical history and nationality. Emotional factors may also influence screening choices and should be considered in future implementation strategies.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsAdultChoice BehaviorCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHuman Papillomavirus VirusesHumansLatviaMiddle AgedSpecimen HandlingSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID42424363
PMCPMC13349179

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.