Evidence mapPaperPMID 39810153Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

Exploring the barriers to cervical screening and perspectives on new self-sampling methods amongst under-served groups.

Stephanie Gillibrand, Helen Gibson, Kelly Howells, Sean Urwin, Jennifer C Davies, Emma J Crosbie, Caroline Sanders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Urine human papillomavirus testing for cervical screening in a UK general screening population: a diagnostic test accuracy study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  6. Acceptability of Self-Sampling for Cervical Screening in Ethnically Diverse Groups in Northwest England: A Focus Group Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

7 authors.

Stephanie GillibrandCentre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, The University of Manchester, Greater Manchester, England, UK. stephanie.gillibrand@manchester.ac.uk.
Helen GibsonNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration, Centre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, The University of Manchester, Greater Manchester, England, UK.
Kelly HowellsNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration, Centre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, The University of Manchester, Greater Manchester, England, UK.
Sean UrwinHealth Organisation, Policy and Economics, Centre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, The University of Manchester, Greater Manchester, England, UK.
Jennifer C DaviesGynaecological Oncology Research Group, Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, The University of Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK.
Emma J CrosbieGynaecological Oncology, Gynaecological Oncology Research Group, Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine a& Health, The University of Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK.
Caroline SandersNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration, Centre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, The University of Manchester, Greater Manchester, England, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical screening rates have fallen in recent years in the UK, representing a health inequity for some under-served groups. Self-sampling alternatives to cervical screening may be useful where certain barriers prohibit access to routine cervical screening. However, there is limited evidence on whether self-sampling methods address known barriers to cervical screening and subsequently increase uptake amongst under-screened groups. Addressing this research gap, the study aims to understand experiences during and barriers to attending cervical screening for under-screened groups and; explore the views of individuals eligible for screening towards self-sampling (vaginal swabbing and urine sampling) as alternative screening methods and how this may address existing barriers to screening.

methodsWe draw on three integrated theoretical frameworks (access to primary care services, intersectional and feminist perspectives) to examine participants' barriers to screening and views toward self-sampling methods. We undertook primary qualitative data collection (interviews and focus groups) with 46 participants, facilitated by collaborations with the VCSE sector which successfully enhanced reach to under-served communities.

resultsKnown barriers to cervical screening persist for under-screened participant groups, but we also find numerous examples of good practice where some participants' needs were met throughout the screening process. Both positive and negative experiences tend to centre around experiences with healthcare professionals, with negative experiences also centring around the use of the speculum. Self-sampling methods (vaginal swab and urine collection) were positively received by participants, and may address some existing barriers through the proponents of enhanced choice - between method and location (which also dovetailed with convenience) leading to greater empowerment. The removal of the speculum and lack of invasive examination by a healthcare professional was also positively received.

conclusionsWhilst barriers to cervical screening remain for under-served groups, examples of good practice are prevalent. Such examples should be implemented more widely to ensure consistency in patient experience and to ensure needs are better met for under-served groups. The introduction of self-sampling alongside traditional methods may reduce barriers to screening, and may boost screening rates for under-screened groups but only if they are implemented with appropriate information and sufficient communication. Failure to implement self-sampling without these considerations may threaten to undermine the identified and important benefits of self-sampling methods.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerHealth Services AccessibilityMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CareSelf CareUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSpecimen HandlingUnited KingdomCervical screeningIntersectionalitySelf-samplingUnder-served groups

Identifiers

PMID39810153
PMCPMC11734453

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.