Cited by 92Women's cancer prevention and managementCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Reasons for non-attendance to cervical screening and preferences for HPV self-sampling in Dutch women

Bosgraaf, Remko P., Ketelaars, Pleun J.W., Verhoef, Viola M.J., Massuger, Leon F.A.G., Meijer, Chris J.L.M., Melchers, Willem J.G., Bekkers, Ruud L.M.·2014·Preventive Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.04.011

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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.
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