Reasons for non-attendance to cervical screening and preferences for HPV self-sampling in Dutch women
Abstract
Objectives High attendance rates in cervical screening are essential for effective cancer prevention. Offering HPV self-sampling to non-responders increases participation rates. The objectives of this study were to determine why non-responders do not attend regular screening, and why they do or do not participate when offered a self-sampling device. Methods A questionnaire study was conducted in the Netherlands from October 2011 to December 2012. A total of 35,477 non-responders were invited to participate in an HPV self-sampling study; 5347 women did opt out. Finally, 30,130 women received a questionnaire and self-sampling device. Results The analysis was based on 9484 returned questionnaires (31.5%) with a self-sample specimen, and 682 (2.3%) without. Among women who returned both, the main reason for non-attendance to cervical screening was that they forgot to schedule an appointment (3068; 32.3%). The most important reason to use the self-sampling device was the opportunity to take a sample in their own time-setting (4763; 50.2%). A total of 30.9% of the women who did not use the self-sampling device preferred after all to have a cervical smear taken instead. Conclusions Organisational barriers are the main reason for non-attendance in regular cervical screening. Important reasons for non-responders to the regular screening to use a self-sampling device are convenience and self-control.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
For CC, fear of having to have a smear taken has been a barrier.
“For CC, fear of having to have a smear taken [25] has been a barrier.”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [25]
Women have reported feeling too embarrassed to have a smear taken by the physician in the Netherlands.
“For example, women have reported feeling too embarrassed to have a smear taken by the physician in the Netherlands (Kingdom of the) [25].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [25]
In one study, Dutch young women cited decreased embarrassment, time/effort investment and a 'do-it-yourself' attitude more often than older women when describing why they preferred HPV self-sampling over clinician sampling.
“In one study, Dutch young women cited reasons of decreased embarrassment, time/effort investment and a ‘do-it-yourself’ attitude more often than older women when describing why they preferred HPV self-sampling over clinician sampling.”
From HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
Cites
the Self-Sampling Study Working Group, Giorgi Rossi, P., Marsili, L. M., Camilloni, L., Iossa, A., Lattanzi, A., Sani, C., Di Pierro, C., Grazzini, G., Angeloni, C., et al. (2011) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6606040 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences
Nishimura, H., Yeh, P. T., Oguntade, H., Kennedy, C. E., & Narasimhan, M. (2021) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003743 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Judah, G., Dilib, F., Darzi, A., & Huf, S. (2022) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-022-09529-w · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review
Palsola, M., Likki, T., Snijders, V., Corbex, M., Lasierra, L., & Curtis, B. (2026) · Glasnik javnog zdravlja · doi:10.5937/serbjph2601086p
- Authors
- Bosgraaf, R. P., Ketelaars, P. J. W., Verhoef, V. M. J., Massuger, L. F. A. G., Meijer, C. J. L. M., Melchers, W. J. G., & Bekkers, R. L. M.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
- Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Ketelaars, Pleun J.W.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-07
- Volume
- 64
- Pages
- 108-113
- ISSN
- 0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2062124341
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 5.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Keywords
- cervical cancer screening, screening non-attendance, HPV self-sampling, Pap smear, appointment scheduling, organizational barriers, women's preferences, cervical cancer prevention, Dutch women
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Specimen Handling, Time Factors, Vaginal Smears, Women's Health, Age Distribution, Papillomavirus Infections, Early Detection of Cancer, Patient Preference, Papanicolaou Test
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review