ArticleAJOG global reports2024
Rural women's preferences for cervical cancer screening via HPV self-sampling: a discrete choice experiment study in chidamoyo, Hurungwe District, Zimbabwe.
Article in AJOG global reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Women's preferences for cervical cancer screening methods: a discrete choice experiment in Estonia and France.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Is there a difference in sample adequacy when vaginal HPV DNA samples are self-collected at home, a health post, or a primary care health center in rural Ethiopia? Implications for community cervical cancer screening.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Women's preferences for HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer screening using HPV self-sampling presents a valuable opportunity to enhance access for underserved and never-screened women in Zimbabwe. However, to ensure the successful implementation of this innovative approach, it is crucial to understand the preferences of key stakeholders, particularly women, with regard to the various components of an HPV self-sampling intervention. Objective: This study aimed to elicit rural women's preferences for HPV self-sampling. Study design: A DCE questionnaire was administered to 215 women in Chidamoyo, Hurungwe Rural District. Women were asked to choose between two hypothetical screening choices defined by education, location of services, supervision of self-sampling, comfort of sampling device, results notification and care after HPV results. Data were analysed using fixed and mixed logistic regression models. Results: Results indicated that the comfort of the sampling device had the most significant impact on women's preferences for HPV self-sampling. Women prioritised facility-based self-sampling, female-supervised self-sampling, and face-to-face education on cervical cancer and screening methods. The methods of results notification and care after HPV results did not significantly impact women's choices. The mixed effects results showed preference heterogeneity in some of the attributes. Interaction analyses suggested that preferences were largely homogenous across the following subgroups: never-screened, previously screened, young and older women. The stratified analysis also showed that preferences were consistent among the four subgroups. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the importance of face-to-face education, comfortable and user-friendly sampling devices, female health worker supervision and health facility-based self-sampling for cervical cancer screening via HPV self-sampling. These insights could guide the design of patient-centric interventions to ensure high uptake and increased screening coverage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.