Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42484709›Full record

ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2026

Access to cervical screening in Australian general practices: a cross-sectional study using a 'secret shopper' approach.

Lucy Boyd, Claire Nightingale, Javiera Martinez-Gutierrez, Ana Machado Colling, Angela Kelly-Hanku, Paula Jops, Claire Bavor, Maleeha Ashfaq, Claire Zammit, Kristy Meiselbach and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 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

11 authors.

Lucy BoydCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Lucy.Boyd@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8287-6978
Claire NightingaleCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Javiera Martinez-GutierrezDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Ana Machado CollingCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Angela Kelly-HankuKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Paula JopsKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Claire BavorCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Maleeha AshfaqCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Claire ZammitCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Kristy MeiselbachCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Julia BrothertonCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 2015739
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCervical screening in Australia is currently accessed through a healthcare provider, typically a general practitioner in primary care. We aimed to assess the real-world availability of and access to cervical screening services, including self-collection.

methodsCross-sectional study was conducted using a secret shopper methodology with a standardized telephone script that emulated real-life calls. A random sample of Australian general practices, from each State/Territory (contacted November 2024-February 2025).

resultsOf the 310 general practices, 72 (23%) could not offer a cervical screening appointment for new patients. Among practices able to provide an appointment, 217 (89%) said self-collection was available. By jurisdiction, the proportion of practices reporting availability of cervical screening ranged from 72 to 83% but did not significantly differ. The proportion of clinics that offered the choice of self-collection differed significantly by State/Territory (

conclusionOur study highlighted that access to cervical screening may be constrained by limited appointments for new patients, out-of-pocket costs, and other factors. These barriers may disproportionately affect individuals facing structural and financial disadvantage. We found significant variability in availability of self-collection by location. Exploring flexible models, including mail-out, pharmacy supported, or community-led models, may improve accessibility and reduce burden on general practices.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerGeneral PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityMass ScreeningUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAccess to Primary CareAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansCancerHealth services researchPolicyPrimary careScreeningWomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID42484709
PMCPMC13391652

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.