Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 May 23;4(5):e0003186.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003186. eCollection 2024.

Patient preference and acceptability of self-sampling for cervical screening in colposcopy clinic attenders: A cross-sectional semi-structured survey

Affiliations

Patient preference and acceptability of self-sampling for cervical screening in colposcopy clinic attenders: A cross-sectional semi-structured survey

Sophie Webb et al. PLOS Glob Public Health. .

Abstract

Low vaginal self-sampling has been pioneered as an important development to improve uptake of cervical screening globally. Limited research is available in specific patient groups in the UK exploring views around self-sampling to detect high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA. Therefore, we explored patient views to support development of a novel point-of-care self-sampling cervical cancer screening device, by undertaking a cross-sectional semi-structured questionnaire survey to explore preferences, acceptability, barriers and facilitators around self-sampling. Patients attending a colposcopy clinic, 25-64 years old, were invited to participate after having carried out a low vaginal self-sample using a regular flocked swab. Participants self-completed an anonymous 12-point questionnaire. Quantitative data were analysed in MS Excel and Graphpad Prism, and qualitative data with Nvivo. We recruited 274 patients with a questionnaire response rate of 76%. Acceptability of self-sampling was high (95%, n = 187/197; Cronbachs-α = 0.778). Participants were asked their choice of future screening method: a) low vaginal self-sampling, b) healthcare professional collected vaginal swab, c) cervical brush sample with healthcare professional speculum examination, or d) no preference. Preferences were: a) 37% (n = 74/198), b) 19% (n = 37/198); c) 9% (n = 17/198), and d) 35% (n = 70/198), showing no single option as a strong preference. Key motivators were: Test simplicity (90%, n = 170/190), speed (81%, n = 153/190) and less pain (65%, n = 123/190). Barriers included lack of confidence taking the sample (53%, n = 10/19), resulting in preference for a healthcare professional sample (47%, n = 9/19). Whilst self-sampling showed high acceptability, lack of strong preference for screening method may reflect that respondents attending colposcopy are already engaged with screening and have differing perception of cervical cancer risk. This group appear less likely to 'switch' to self-sampling, and it may be better targeted within primary and community care, focusing on under-screened populations. Any shift in this paradigm in the UK requires comprehensive education and support for patients and providers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: SK and HMS are advisors to and shareholders in QuantuMDx, a molecular nucleic acid test-based diagnostic company. SK, YA and HMS are advisors to Global Access Diagnostics, a developer of rapid diagnostic tests, and SK is a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), a not-for-profit organisation that produces global guidance on affordable diagnostics. These competing interests will not alter adherence to PLOS Global Public Health policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Consort diagram for questionnaire response rate.
Fig 2
Fig 2. 100% Stacked bar charts for Likert-scale responses of patient experience of self-sampling.

Similar articles

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al.. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2021. May;71(3[14]):209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 - DOI - PubMed
    1. World Health Organisation. Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem. 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240014107.
    1. NHS Digital. Cervical Screening Programme, England—2022–2023. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/cer.... Accessed December, 2023.
    1. Castanon A, Rebolj M, Pesola F, Sasieni P. Recovery strategies following COVID-19 disruption to cervical cancer screening and their impact on excess diagnoses. British journal of cancer 2021. Apr;124(8):1361–1365. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01275-3 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust. The growing issue of access to cervical screening across the UK: The problems and how they can be overcome. 2018; Available at: https://www.jostrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/final_accessibility_poli.... Accessed 09/02/2023.

LinkOut - more resources