Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40742376›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025

Acceptability of Self-Sampling for Cervical Screening in Ethnically Diverse Groups in Northwest England: A Focus Group Study.

Sophie Whitley, Rachel L Hawkins, Jennifer C Davies, Jiexin Cao, Lee Malcomson, Emma J Crosbie, Lorna McWilliams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Sophie WhitleyManchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Rachel L HawkinsNIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1837-4409
Jennifer C DaviesNIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester, UK.
Jiexin CaoDivision of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2808-7024
Lee MalcomsonNIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester, UK.
Emma J CrosbieNIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0284-8630
Lorna McWilliamsManchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6414-2732

Funding

This study was funded by a University of Manchester UMRI Interdisciplinary Research Pump-prime Competition. J.C.D. is supported by Cancer Research UK (CRUK) via funding to the Cancer Research UK Manchester Centre (C147/A25254) and their Clinical Academic Training Award (C19941/A28707). J.C. is supported by a Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Clinical Research Fellowship. E.J.C. is supported by a National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Advanced Fellowship (NIHR300650). E.J.C., L.Mc.W., R.L.H. and L.M. were supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203308).
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionResearch indicates disproportionately low cervical screening uptake by diverse ethnic groups in England. If acceptable, self-sampling might address population-specific barriers and improve screening uptake. The Alternative CErvical Screening (ACES) Diversity study aimed to explore the prospective acceptability of self-sampling (urine sampling and self-swabbing), as an alternative to current cervical screening, among women from diverse ethnic groups.

methodsA qualitative study design was employed using focus groups. Forty-eight women from diverse ethnic groups were recruited via community partners in Northwest England and a cross-sectional survey. Eight focus groups were conducted (one online and seven in-person; four with interpreters for Mandarin, Cantonese, Polish and Urdu). Data were transcribed, translated and analysed in English using thematic framework analysis guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.

resultsThree themes were identified. 'Cultural considerations' explored how aspects of culture and faith influenced perceptions of self-sampling. 'Desire for comfort and control' reflected views of how self-sampling increases autonomy by maintaining privacy, potentially reducing both pain and tension associated with screening. 'Confidence in testing' illustrates beliefs about self-sampling, around ease of use, practical challenges and accuracy concerns.

conclusionsSelf-sampling for cervical screening was considered highly acceptable. If introduced, self-sampling could increase cervical screening uptake amongst women from diverse ethnic groups. Having a choice in how to interact with the screening programme and continuing to raise awareness of cervical screening were considered important. Future research should explore the concurrent or retrospective acceptability of urine self-sampling for cervical screening. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Multiple public involvement discussion sessions in Northwest England-based community centres were arranged with women to explore and build understanding about cervical screening and speak about the ACES Diversity study. A further session was held, with an interpreter, to discuss the focus group topic guide and study design with women and create an opportunity for any feedback. Written feedback was provided for the recruitment poster from seven women (two East Asian, two Central and Eastern European, two African-Caribbean and one South Asian).

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerEthnicityMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CareSelf CareSpecimen HandlingUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMiddle Agedcervical screeningcommunity‐based participatory researchethnicityprospective acceptabilityself‐samplingthematic framework analysis

Identifiers

PMID40742376
PMCPMC12312516

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.