Cited by 141Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Offering HPV self-sampling kits: an updated meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies to increase participation in cervical cancer screening

Open access
Costa, Stefanie, Verberckmoes, Bo, Castle, Philip E., Arbyn, Marc·2023·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Background Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-samples represents a great opportunity to increase cervical cancer screening uptake among under-screened women. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were performed to update the evidence on the efficacy of strategies for offering self-sampling kits for HPV testing compared to conventional invitations and to compare different self-sampling invitation scenarios. Four experimental invitational scenarios were considered. Women in the control group were invited for screening according to existing practice: collection of a cervical specimen by a healthcare professional. Random-effects models were used to pool proportions, relative participation rates and absolute participation differences. Results Thirty-three trials were included. In the intention-to-treat analysis, all self-sampling invitation scenarios were more effective in reaching under-screened women compared to controls. Pooled participation difference (PD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for experimental vs. control was 13.2% (95% CI = 11.0-15.3%) for mail-to-all, 4.4% (95% CI = 1.2-7.6%) for opt-in, 39.1% (95% CI = 8.4-69.9%) for community mobilisation & outreach and 28.1% (23.5-32.7%) for offer at healthcare service. PD for the comparison opt-in vs. mail-to-all, assessed in nine trials, was -8.2% (95% CI = -10.8 to -5.7%). Discussion Overall, screening participation was higher among women invited for self-sampling compared to control, regardless of the invitation strategy used. Opt-in strategies were less effective than send-to-all strategies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41416-022-02094-w

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [6]IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Human papillomaviruses. Vol. 90. Lyon, FR: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2007.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Costa, S., Verberckmoes, B., Castle, P. E., & Arbyn, M.
Affiliations
  • Sciensano (Belgium) (BE)
  • Ghent University Hospital (BE)
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Arbyn, Marc
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2022-12-14
Volume
128
Issue
5
Pages
805-813
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W4311399768
Cited by
139
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 12
FWCI
3.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (825747, 847845)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | NCI | Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (ZIACP101237-01)
  • VALHUDES researcher-induced frameworks for comparison and validation of HPV tests used on clinician-collected and self-collected samples
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
HPV self-sampling, cervical cancer screening, screening uptake, community mobilization, underscreened women, HPV testing
MeSH terms
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Self Care, Specimen Handling, Vaginal Smears, Papillomaviridae, Papillomavirus Infections, Early Detection of Cancer

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