CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Is self-sampling to test for high-risk papillomavirus an acceptable option among women who have been treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia?

Open access
Andersson, Sonia, Belkić, Karen, Mints, Miriam, Östensson, Ellinor·2018·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0199038PMC PMC6005489
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Self-sampling to test for high risk human papilloma virus (HPV) is becoming an increasingly important component of cervical cancer screening. The aim of this observational study is to examine how women treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) view HPV self-sampling. METHODS: Invited to participate in the present study were patients who had undergone treatment of high-grade CIN (grade 2 or higher) and were followed-up at 6-months at the Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm. The participants were instructed as to how to perform HPV self-sampling. Thereafter, the participants completed a questionnaire about HPV self-sampling and other cervical cancer screening methods, as well as about self-perceived risk of cervical cancer without regular gynecologic follow-up and about specific knowledge regarding HPV, CIN and cervical cancer. RESULTS: Altogether 479 women enrolled in this study. The participation rate was 96.6%. Nearly 75% of the participants stated they would consider performing the HPV self-sampling prior to their next gynecologic follow-up. Confidence in HPV self-sampling was a significant independent predictor of willingness to perform HPV self-sampling. However, confidence in HPV self-sampling was significantly lower than confidence in Papanicolaou smears and in HPV testing with samples collected by health professionals. Higher specific knowledge about HPV, CIN and cervical cancer was also a significant independent predictor of willingness to perform HPV self-sampling, as was having travelled longer distance to attend gynecologic follow-up. Participants with lower income and without completed university education expressed significantly higher confidence in HPV self-sampling and lower confidence in Papanicolaou smears than the other women. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the views of women treated for high-grade CIN vis-à-vis HPV self-sampling. The latter is an acceptable option for the vast majority of this cohort of women.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0199038

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • In a study of Swedish women with CIN, 85% of participants rated self-sampling procedures (urine and cervical swab) as easy.

    “In a study of Swedish women with CIN, 85% of participants rated self-sampling procedures (urine and cervical swab) as easy”

    From HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences (2021) · cites this paper as [66]

    The Results section reports that over 85% of participants considered self-collection easy to carry out. The Methods section says participants self-collected urine and vaginal-fluid samples; cervical scrape samples were collected by clinicians, not by self-sampling. Thus the percentage is supported, but the claim's description of a self-collected cervical swab is not. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In that study of Swedish women with CIN, 74% said they could see themselves self-sampling at home.

    “74% said they could see themselves self-sampling at home.”

    From HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences (2021) · cites this paper as [66]

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: 62

  1. [1]Pimple S, Mishra G, Shastri S. Global strategies for cervical cancer prevention. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2016; 28: 4– 10. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000241 26642063 · DOI
  2. [2]Torre LA, Islami F, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global cancer in women: Burdens and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017; 26: OF1– 14. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0858 28223433 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [3]Altobelli E, Lattanzi A. Cervical carcinoma in the European Union: An update on disease burden, screening program state of activation and coverage as of March 2014. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015, 25: 474– 483. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000374 25695550 · DOI
  4. [4]Wentzensen N, Arbyn M. HPV-based cervical cancer screening- facts, fiction, and misperceptions. Prev Med 2017; 98: 33– 35. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.12.040 28279260 PMC5347477 · DOI
  5. [5]Galbraith KV, Gilkey MB, Smith JS, Richman AR, Barclay L, Brewer NT. Perceptions of mailed HPV self-testing among women at higher risk for cervical cancer. J Community Health 2014; 39: 849– 856. doi: 10.1007/s10900-014-9931-x 25120228 PMC4316669 · DOI
  6. [6]Otero-Sabogal R, Stewart S, Sabogal F, Brown B, Pérez-Stable EJ. Access and attitudinal factors related to breast and cervical cancer rescreening: Why are Latinas still underscreened? Health Educ Behav 2003; 30: 337– 359. doi: 10.1177/1090198103030003008 19731500 · DOI
  7. [7]Singh GH, Miller BA, Hankey BR, Edwards BK. Persistent area socioeconomic disparities in U.S. incidence of cervical cancer, mortality, stage and survival 1975–2000. Cancer 2004; 101: 1051– 1057. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20467 15329915 · DOI
  8. [8]Pruitt SL, Shim MJ, Dolan Mullen P, Vernon SW, Amick BC. Association of area socioeconomic status and breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009; 18: 2579– 2599. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0135 19815634 PMC2760038 · DOI
  9. [9]Davis M, Feldman S. Making sense of cervical cancer screening guidelines and recommendations. Curr Treat Options in Oncol 2015; 16: 55 (14 pages) doi: 10.1007/s11864-015-0373-1 26467929 · DOI
  10. [10]Asciutto KC, Henic E, Darlin L, Forslund O, Borgfeldt C. Follow up with HPV test and cytology as test of cure, 6 months after conization, is reliable. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2016; 95: 1251– 1257. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12960 27513888 · DOI
  11. [11]Smith RA, Andrews K, Brooks D, Fedewa SA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Saslow D, et al Cancer screening in the United States, 2017: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. Ca Cancer J Clin 2017; 67: 100– 121. doi: 10.3322/caac.21392 28170086 · DOI
  12. [13]Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O’Connor D, Prey M, et al The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. J Am Med Assoc 2002; 287: 2114– 2119. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.16.2114 11966386 · DOI · Paper page
  13. [14]Elfström KM, Arnheim-Dahlström L, von Karsa L, Dillner J. Cervical cancer screening in Europe: Quality assurance and organization of programmes. Eur J Cancer 2015; 51: 950– 968. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.03.008 25817010 · DOI
  14. [16]Abdoli G, Bottai M, Moradi T. Cancer mortality by country of birth, sex, and socioeconomic position in Sweden, 1961–2009. PLOS One 2014; 9; e93174 (13 pages) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093174 24682217 PMC3969357 · DOI
  15. [17]Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A, Meijer CJ, Poljak M, Ogilvie G, et al Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine 2012; 30 Suppl 5: F88– 99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.06.095 23199969 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [18]Arbyn M, Verdoodt F, Snijders P, Verhoef V, Suonio E, Dillner L, et al Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 172– 183. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70570-9 24433684 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [19]Belinson JL, Du H, Yang B, Wu R, Belinson SE, Qu X, et al Improved sensitivity of vaginal self-collection and high-risk human papillomavirus testing. Int J Cancer 2012; 130: 1855– 1860. doi: 10.1002/ijc.26202 21630255 · DOI
  18. [20]Catarino R, Vassilakos P, Bilancioni A, Vanden Eynde M, Meyer-Hamme U, et al Randomized comparison of two vaginal self-sampling methods for human papillomavirus detection: Dry swabs versus FTA cartridge. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0143644 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143644 26630353 PMC4668032 · DOI
  19. [21]Chen Q, Du H, Zhang R, Zhao JH, Hu QC, Wang C, et al Evaluation of novel assays for the detection of human papilloma virus in self-collected samples for cervical cancer screening. Genet Mol Res 2016; 15: (7 pages) doi: 10.4238/gmr.15027896 27420961 · DOI
  20. [22]Chernesky M, Jang D, Gilchrist J, Elit L, Lytwyn A, Smieja M, et al Evaluation of a new APTIMA specimen collection and transportation kit for high-risk human papillomavirus E6/E7 messenger RNA in cervical and vaginal specimens. Sex Trans Dis 2014; 41: 365– 368. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000125 24825332 · DOI
  21. [23]Jentschke M, Chen K, Arbyn M, Hertel B, Noskowicz M, Soergel P, et al Direct comparison of two vaginal self-sampling devices for the detection of human papillomavirus infections. J Clin Virol 2016; 82: 46– 50. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2016.06.016 27434147 · DOI
  22. [24]Arbyn M, Snijders PJ, Meijer CJ, Berkhof J, Cuschieri K, Kocjan BJ, et al Which high-risk HPV assays fulfil criteria for use in primary cervical cancer screening? Clin Microbiol Infect 2015; 21: 817– 826. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.04.015 25936581 · DOI · Paper page
  23. [25]Anhang R, Nelson JA, Telerant R, Chiasson MA, Wright TC. Acceptability of Self-collection of specimens for HPV DNA testing in an urban population. J Womens Health 2005; 14: 721– 728. 16232104
  24. [26]Crofts V, Flahault E, Tebeu P, Untiet S, Kengne Fosso G, Boulvain M, et al Education efforts may contribute to wider acceptance of human papilloma virus self-sampling. Int J Womens Health 2015; 7: 149– 154. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S56307 25674016 PMC4321569 · DOI
  25. [27]de Melo Kuil L, Lorenzi AT, Stein M, Resende JCP, Antoniazzi M, Longatto-Filho A, et al The role of self-collection by vaginal lavage for the detection of HPV and high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. Acta Cytol on line June 2017 (9 pages). doi: 10.1159/000477331 28564641 · DOI
  26. [28]Ma’som M, Bhoo-Pathy N, Hairizan Nasir N, Bellinson J, Subramaniam S, Ma Y, et al Attitudes and factors affecting acceptability of self-administered cervicovaginal sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping as an alternative to Pap testing among multiethnic Malaysian women. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e011022 (7 pages). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-011022 27491667 PMC4985871 · DOI
  27. [29]Mao C, Kulasingam S, Whitham H, Hawes S, Lin J, Kiviat N. Clinician and patient acceptability of self-collected human Papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health 2017; 26: 609– 615. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2016.5965 28332888 PMC5512311 · DOI
  28. [30]Racey C, Gesink D. Barriers and facilitators to cervical cancer screening among women in rural Ontario, Canada: The role of self-collected HPV testing. J Rural Health 2016; 32: 136– 145. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12136 26265118 · DOI
  29. [31]Vahabi M, Lofters A. Muslim immigrant women’s views on cervical cancer screening and HPV self-sampling in Ontario, Canada. BMC Public Health 2016; 16: 868 (13 pages). doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3564-1 27557928 PMC4997745 · DOI
  30. [32]Arrossi S, Ramos S, Straw C, Thouyaret L, Orellana L. HPV testing: a mixed-method approach to understand why women prefer self-collection in a middle-income country. BMC Public Health 2016; 16: 832 (11 pages). doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3474-2 27538390 PMC4990977 · DOI · Paper page
  31. [33]Ducancelle A, Reiser J, Pivert A, Le Guillou-Guillemette H, Le Duc-Banaszuk A, Lunel-Fabiani F. Home-based urinary HPV DNA testing in women who do not attend cervical cancer screening clinics. J Infect 2015; 71, 377– 384. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2015.05.001 25964233 · DOI
  32. [34]Lim A, Hollingworth A, Kalwij S, Curran G, Sasieni P, Offering self-sampling to cervical screening non-attenders in primary care. J Med Screen 2017; 24: 43– 49. doi: 10.1177/0969141316639346 27235844 · DOI
  33. [35]Lindell M, Sanner K, Wikström I, Wilander E, Self-sampling of vaginal fluid and high-risk human papillomavirus testing in women aged 50 years or older not attending Papanicolaou smear screening. BJOG 2012; 119: 245– 248. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03147.x 22017806 · DOI
  34. [36]Östensson E, Hellström A-C, Hellman K, Gustavsson I, Gyllensten U, Wilander E, et al Projected cost-effectiveness of repeat high-risk human papillomavirus testing using self-collected vaginal samples in the Swedish cervical cancer screening program. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013; 92: 830– 840. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12143 23530870 · DOI
  35. [37]Kocken M, Helmerhorst T, Berkhof J, Louwers J, Nobbenhuis M, Bais A, et al Risk of recurrent high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after successful treatment: a long-term multi-cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 441– 450. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70078-X 21530398 · DOI
  36. [38]Ebisch RMF, Rutten DWE, IntHout J, Melchers WJG, Massuger LFAG, Bulten J, et al Long-lasting increased risk of human papillomavirus-related carcinomas and premalignancies after cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3: A population-based cohort study. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: (9 pages) doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.4543 28541790 · DOI
  37. [39]Katki HA, Schiffman M, Castle PE, Fetterman B, Poitras NE, Lorey T, et al Five-year risk of recurrence after treatment of CIN2, CIN3, or AIS: Performance of HPV and Pap contesting in posttreatment management. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013; 17: S78– S84. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e31828543c5 23519309 PMC3616418 · DOI
  38. [40]Brismar S, Johansson B, Borjesson M, Arbyn M, Andersson S. Follow-up after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia by human papillomavirus genotyping. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201: 17.e1– 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.01.005 19344881 · DOI
  39. [41]Persson M, Brismar Wendel S, Ljungblad L, Johansson B, Weiderpass E, Andersson S. High-risk human papillomavirus E6/E7 mRNA and L1 DNA as markers of residual/recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Oncol Rep 2012; 28: 346– 352. doi: 10.3892/or.2012.1755 22484610 · DOI
  40. [42]Garutti P, Borghi C, Bedoni C, Bonaccorsi G, Greco P, Tognon M, et al HPV-based strategy in follow-up of patients treated for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia: 5-year results in a public health surveillance setting. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017; 210: 236– 241. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.12.018 28068597 · DOI
  41. [43]Kocken M, Uijterwaal M, de Vries A, Berkhof J, Ket J, Helmerhorst T, Meijer C. High-risk papillomavirus testing versus cytology in predicting post-treatment disease in women treated for high-grade cervical disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 125: 500– 507. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.015 22266548 · DOI
  42. [44]Andersson S, Belkić K, Safer Demirbüker S, Mints M, Östensson E. Perceived cervical cancer risk among women treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: The importance of specific knowledge. PLOS One 2017; 12: e190156 PMC5741232 29272293
  43. [46]Östensson E, Alder S, Elfström KM, Sundström K, Zethraeus N, Arbyn M, Andersson S. Barriers to and facilitators of compliance with clinic-based cervical cancer screening: Population-based cohort study of women aged 23–60 years. PLOS One 2015; 10: (19 pages) e0128270 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128270 26011051 PMC4444356 · DOI
  44. [47]O’Connor M, Waller J, Gallagher P, Martin CM, O’Leary JJ, D’Arcy T, et al Understanding women’s differing experiences of distress after colposcopy: A qualitative interview study. Womens Health Issues 2015; 25: 528– 534. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2015.05.009 26189936 · DOI
  45. [48]O’Connor M, Costello L, Murphy J, Prendiville W, Martin CM, O’Leary JJ, et al ‘I don’t care whether it’s HPV or ABC, I just want to know if I have cancer.’ Factors influencing women’s emotional responses to undergoing human papillomavirus testing in routine management in cervical screening: a qualitative study. BJOG 2014; 121: 1421– 1430. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12741 24690225 · DOI
  46. [49]Kahn J, Slap G, Bernstein D, Kollar L, Tissot A, Hillard P, Rosenthal S, Psychological, behavioral, and interpersonal impact of human papillomavirus and pap test results. J Womens Health 2005; 14: 650– 659. 16181021
  47. [50]Luszczynska A, Durawa A, Scholz U, Knoll N. Empowerment beliefs and intention to uptake cervical cancer screening: three psychosocial mediating mechanisms. Women Health 2012; 52: 162– 181. doi: 10.1080/03630242.2012.656187 22458292 · DOI
  48. [51]Fouad M, Partridge E, Dignan M, Holt C, Johnson R, Nagy C, et al A community-driven action plan to eliminate breast and cervical cancer disparity: successes and limitations. J Cancer Educ 2006; 21 (1 suppl): S91– 100. doi: 10.1207/s15430154jce2101s_16 17020510 · DOI
  49. [52]Consedine N, Horton D, Magai C, Kukafka R. Breast screening in response to gain, loss and empowerment framed messages among diverse, low-income women. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2007; 18: 550– 566. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2007.0057 17675713 · DOI
  50. [53]Foster C, Fenlon D. Recovery and self-management support following primary cancer treatment. Br J Cancer 2011; 105, S21– S2810. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.419 22048029 PMC3251956 · DOI
  51. [55]Bloom J, Stewart S, D’Onofrio C, Luce J, Banks P. Addressing the needs of young breast cancer survivors at the 5 year milestone: can a short-term, low intensity intervention produce change? J Cancer Surviv 2008; 2: 190– 204. doi: 10.1007/s11764-008-0058-x 18670888 · DOI
  52. [56]Brown DR, Fouad MN, Basen-Engquist K, Tortolero-Luna G. Recruitment and retention of minority women in cancer screening, prevention, and treatment trials. Ann Epidemiol 2000; 10 (Suppl 8): S13– S21. 11189088
  53. [57]Terán L, Baezconde-Garbanati L, Márquez M, Castellanos E, Belkić K. On-time mammography screening with a focus on Latinas with low income: a proposed cultural model. Anti-Cancer Res 2007; 27: 4325– 4338. 18214040
  54. [58]Mousavi SM, Sundquist K, Hemminki K. Morbidity and mortality in gynecological cancers among first- and second-generation immigrants to Sweden. Int J Cancer 2012; 131: 497– 504. doi: 10.1002/ijc.26395 21898385 · DOI
  55. [59]Azerkan F, Sparén P, Sandin S, Tillgren P, Faxelid E, Zendehdel K. Cervical screening participation and risk among Swedish-born and immigrant women in Sweden. Int J Cancer 2012; 130: 937– 947. doi: 10.1002/ijc.26084 21437898 · DOI
  56. [60]Azerkan F, Widmark C, Sparén P, Weiderpass E, Tillgren P, Faxelid E. When life got in the way: How Danish and Norwegian immigrant women in Sweden reason about cervical screening and why they postpone attendance. PLOS One 2015; 7; 0107624 (22 pages) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107624 26158449 PMC4497727 · DOI
  57. [61]Goel SM, Wee CC, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, Ngo-Metzger Q, Phillips RS. Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer screening: The importance of foreign birth as a barrier to care. J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18: 1028– 1035. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2003.20807.x 14687262 PMC1494963 · DOI
  58. [62]Marlow L, Wardle J, Waller J. Understanding cervical screening non-attendance among ethnic minority women in England. Br J Cancer 2015; 113: 833– 839. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.248 26171938 PMC4559824 · DOI
  59. [63]Navarro AM, Senn KL, McNicholas LJ, Kaplan RM, Roppé B, Campo MC. Por La Vida model intervention enhances use of cancer screening tests among Latinas. Am J Prev Med 1998; 15: 32– 41. 9651636
  60. [64]Baezconde-Garbanati L, Portillo C, Garbanati J. Disparities in health indicators for Latinas in California. Hisp J Behav Sci 1999; 21: 302– 329.
  61. [65]Remennick L. ‘I have no time for potential troubles’: Russian immigrant women and breast cancer screening in Israel. J Immigr Health 2003; 5: 153– 163. 14574066
  62. [66]Harper DM, DeMars LR. HPV vaccines—A review of the first decade. Gynecol Oncol 2017; 146: 196– 204. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.04.004 28442134 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Andersson, S., Belkić, K., Mints, M., & Östensson, E.
Affiliations
Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Östensson, Ellinor
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2018-06-18
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
e0199038
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0199038
PMC
PMC6005489
OpenAlex
W2809609410
Cited by
14
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Swedish Cancer Foundation (110544, CAN2011/471)
  • Cancerfonden
  • Karolinska Institutet
  • Stockholms Läns Landsting (20160155, 20130097)
  • Vetenskapsrådet (521-2008-2899)
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, high-risk HPV, high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, cervical cancer screening, patient acceptability, Pap smear, HPV knowledge, socioeconomic factors
MeSH terms
Adult, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Female, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Papillomavirus Infections, 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