The acceptability of self-sampled screening for HPV DNA: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Objective To examine whether or not self-sampled cervical screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA is acceptable and if women prefer self-sampling to clinician-based sampling. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Thirty-seven primary studies obtained through a comprehensive search of six electronic bibliographic databases from 1986 to 2014 and other sources. Search keywords included HPV, screening, DNA testing, vaginal testing, self-collected specimen, self-collected sample, self-sampling, self-screening, preferences and acceptability. Review methods Studies eligible for analysis included those that had participants perform self-sampling, evaluated participant acceptance of or preference for self-sampled vaginal HPV DNA and reported data to calculate an effect size. There were no exclusion criteria for publication status or geographical location. Meta-analytic methods were used to quantitatively synthesise effect sizes across studies. Results The 37 studies included 18 516 female participants from 24 countries across five continents. Overall, there was a high level of acceptability of self-sampling among the participants. Participants reported preference for self-sampling over clinician sampling due to attractive characteristics such as ease and privacy. Conclusions The overall acceptability of self-sampled cervical screening, coupled with economic and effective care, provides opportunities for expanding screening services. Importantly, this can provid…
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?
A recent systematic review of 37 self-collection studies from 24 countries found overall high acceptability.
“A recent systematic review of 37 self-collection studies from 24 countries found overall high acceptability (Nelson et al., 2017).”
From Acceptability and Concordance of Self- Versus Clinician- Sampling for HPV Testing among Rural South Indian Women (2021) · cites this paper as Nelson et al., 2017
Several studies in different countries have demonstrated self-sampling for HPV to be a cost effective, easy, feasible, and well-accepted method with high accuracy.
“Several studies in different countries have demonstrated self‐sampling for HPV to be a cost effective, easy, feasible, and well‐accepted method with high accuracy. 16 , 17”
HPV DNA self-sampling is generally a highly acceptable method for the purposes of cervical cancer screening.
“Generally, HPV DNA self-sampling is a highly acceptable method for the purposes of cervical cancer screening13”
From HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Cites
A New Initiative on Precision Medicine
Collins, F. S., & Varmus, H. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1500523 · Cited by 5,202 · see citing works
Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data
Nyaga, V. N., Arbyn, M., & Aerts, M. (2014) · Archives of Public Health · doi:10.1186/2049-3258-72-39 · Cited by 2,139 · see citing works
Ronco, G., Dillner, J., Elfström, K. M., Tunesi, S., Snijders, P. J. F., Arbyn, M., Kitchener, H., Segnan, N., Gilham, C., Giorgi-Rossi, P., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62218-7 · Cited by 1,810 · see citing works
Arrossi, S., Thouyaret, L., Herrero, R., Campanera, A., Magdaleno, A., Cuberli, M., Barletta, P., Laudi, R., & Orellana, L. (2015) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(14)70354-7 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The IARC Perspective on Cervical Cancer Screening
Bouvard, V., Wentzensen, N., Mackie, A., Berkhof, J., Brotherton, J., Giorgi-Rossi, P., Kupets, R., Smith, R., Arrossi, S., Bendahhou, K., et al. (2021) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsr2030640 · Cited by 357 · see citing works
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
Simms, K. T., Keane, A., Nguyen, D. T. N., Caruana, M., Hall, M. T., Lui, G., Gauvreau, C., Demke, O., Arbyn, M., Basu, P., et al. (2023) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02600-4 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Daponte, N., Valasoulis, G., Michail, G., Magaliou, I., Daponte, A.-I., Garas, A., Grivea, I., Bogdanos, D. P., & Daponte, A. (2023) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers15061669 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Kellen, E., Benoy, I., Vanden Broeck, D., Martens, P., Bogers, J., Haelens, A., & Van Limbergen, E. (2018) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.31391 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Madhivanan, P., Nishimura, H., Ravi, K., Pope, B., Coudray, M., Arun, A., Krupp, K., Jayakrishna, P., & Srinivas, V. (2021) · Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention · doi:10.31557/apjcp.2021.22.3.971 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
“A recent systematic review of 37 self-collection studies from 24 countries found overall high acceptability (Nelson et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMishra, G. A., Pimple, S. A., Anand, K. V., Kulkarni, V. Y., Patil, A. S., & Biswas, S. K. (2025) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.35222 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“16,17 Self-sampling has the advantage of not requiring a vaginal speculum examination, thus reducing the discomfort that may make screening unattractive, even among women who have access to health care.”
InfluentialOommen, A. M., Ashfaq, M., Tonsing, M. V., Cherian, A. G., Singarayar, P., Viswanathan, V., Muniswamy, V., Hawkes, D., Abraham, P., Pricilla, R. A., et al. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-101599 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Integrating behavioural science into HPV self-sampling and cervical cancer elimination strategies
Devotta, K., Lofters, A., Sayani, A., & Shapiro, G. K. (2026) · Women's Health · doi:10.1177/17455057261484755
- Authors
- Nelson, E. J., Maynard, B. R., Loux, T., Fatla, J., Gordon, R., & Arnold, L. D.
- Affiliations
- Saint Louis University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Nelson, Erik J
- Venue
- Sexually Transmitted Infections
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2016-10-19
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 56-61
- ISSN
- 0007-134X (ISSN-L)
- 1368-4973
- 1472-3263
- OpenAlex
- W2533306219
- Cited by
- 252
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 10
- FWCI
- 2.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Sexually Transmitted Infections (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Saint Louis University
- National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
- 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
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
- Keywords
- self-sampling, HPV testing, cervical cancer screening, acceptability, patient preferences, vaginal swabs, cervical cancer prevention, health disparities
- MeSH terms
- Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Specimen Handling, Vaginal Smears, Self-Examination, 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
