ArticleBMJ open2026
Women's preferences and concerns on HPV screening sampling methods for cervical cancer in Ibadan, Nigeria: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesThis study assessed women's preferences and concerns on human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sample and healthcare provider (HCP) sample collections for cervical cancer screening in Ibadan, Nigeria.
designThis was a cross-sectional study. SETTINGS: Study was conducted in primary healthcare centres in selected peri-urban and urban communities in Ibadan, Nigeria.
participantsA total of 620 sexually active women aged 25-65 years were recruited for the study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the preferred method of collecting cervico-vaginal sample (self-sampling or provider sampling) by women. Secondary outcomes were observed differences in preferences between women in urban and peri-urban communities, reasons for these preferences, concerns on each method of sample collection and preferred locations for self-sample collection.
resultsOverall, more women preferred HCP sample collection (51.6%) than self-sampling collection (48.4%) (p=0.422). Self-sampling was more preferred among urban participants (53.7%), while HCP sample collection was more preferred among peri-urban participants (56.6%) (p=0.011). Peri-urban women preferred HCP sample collection due to clinician's expertise (90.2%) and result reliability (57.8%), while urban women preferred self-sample collection because of privacy (74.2%), comfort (62.1%) and confidentiality (55%). Most women (63.7%) preferred to self-sample in a private place in the hospital while others preferred to self-sample at home (36.3%).
conclusionPreferences for HPV sample collection methods were similar, with a slightly higher proportion of women favouring HCP collection compared with self-sampling. Self-sampling was an acceptable complementary option to HCP-based sampling. Factors such as age, media access, and awareness of HPV were associated with women's preferences for sample collection methods. Integrating flexible, facility-based self-sampling within existing health services may help address contextual barriers and could potentially improve participation in cervical cancer screening programmes in Nigeria.
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.