To what extent will women accept HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening? A qualitative study conducted in Switzerland
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: Human papillomavirus self-sampling (self-HPV) is regarded as an alternative to Pap smear testing for women who do not participate in cervical cancer screening. This qualitative study aimed to determine women's views on cervical cancer screening and the various obstacles to participation in screening, and to evaluate the perceived benefits and disadvantages of self-HPV. METHOD: Twenty-four focus groups were conducted in 2012, with a total of 125 participants aged between 24 and 67 years. They were recruited through different channels, including flyers and posters, personal contacts, and an ongoing clinical trial focused on the unscreened population. Interview transcripts have been coded with the ATLAS.ti CAQDAS. RESULTS: Fifty-seven participants regularly attended screening and 68 had not been screened in the past 3 years. While some participants considered self-HPV as an acceptable screening method, others expressed concerns. Benefits included access, reduced costs, and time-saving. Disadvantages included the fear of not performing the test correctly, hurting oneself, and the accuracy of the test. Participants expressed concern that self-HPV would replace gynecological visits. CONCLUSION: Self-HPV is not likely to rapidly or substantially modify women's behaviors in regard to screening. While it may offer benefits in some specific situations, most women emphasized the advantages of regular gynecologist visits.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Other studies found that older women were more likely to prefer self-sampling over clinician sampling.
“Other studies found that older women were more likely to prefer 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 [24]
The Results report a generational difference: some older women were more in favor of self-sampling than younger women, particularly after a bad experience with pelvic examinations. But the qualitative finding does not establish that older women generally preferred self-sampling over clinician sampling; the Conclusion says most participants preferred a gynecological visit. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn that Swiss study, some older women, less used to regular gynaecological appointments, were more in favour of self-sampling, especially if they previously had had a negative experience with pelvic examinations.
“while some older women, less used to regular gynaecological appointments, were more in favour of self-sampling, especially if they previously had had a negative experience with pelvic examinations.”
From HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences (2021) · cites this paper as [24]
A qualitative study of women in Switzerland found that younger women were used to visiting a gynaecologist and did not see the necessity of changing this practice.
“A qualitative study of women in Switzerland found that younger women were used to visiting a gynaecologist and did not see the necessity of changing this practice”
From HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences (2021) · cites this paper as [24]
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- [1]Barbee L Kobetz E Menard J Assessing the acceptability of self-sampling for HPV among Haitian immigrant women: CBPR in action Cancer Causes Control 2010 21 3 421 431 19943103
- [2]Arbyn M Verdoodt F Snijders PJ Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis Lancet Oncol 2014 15 2 172 183 24433684
- [3]Catarino R Vassilakos P Stadali-Ullrich H Feasibility of at-home self-sampling for HPV testing as an appropriate screening strategy for nonparticipants in Switzerland: preliminary results of the DEPIST study J Low Genit Tract Dis 2014 19 1 27 34 25148227
- [4]Giorgi Rossi P Baldacchini F Ronco G The possible effects on socioeconomic inequalities of introducing HPV testing as primary test in cervical cancer screening programs Front Oncol 2014 4 20 24575388 PMC3919018
- [5]Sultana F English DR Simpson JA Rationale and design of the iPap trial: a randomized controlled trial of home-based HPV self-sampling for improving participation in cervical screening by never- and under-screened women in Australia BMC Cancer 2014 14 207 24646201 PMC3994873
- [6]Wikström I Stenvall H Wilander E Attitudes to self-sampling of vaginal smear for human papilloma virus analysis among women not attending organized cytological screening Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2007 86 6 720 725 17520406
- [7]Piana L Leandri FX Le Retraite L L’auto-prélèvement Vaginal à Domicile Pour Recherche De Papilloma Virus à Haut Risque. Campagne Expérimentale Du Département Des Bouches-du-Rhône. [HPV-Hr detection by home self sampling in women not compliant with pap test for cervical cancer screening. Results of a pilot programme in Bouches-du-Rhône] Bulletin Du Cancer 2011 98 7 723 731 French 21700548
- [8]Dzuba IG Diaz EY Allen B The acceptability of self-collected samples for HPV testing vs. the pap test as alternatives in cervical cancer screening J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2002 11 3 265 275 11988136
- [9]Igidbashian S Boveri S Spolti N Radice D Sandri MT Sideri M Self-collected human papillomavirus testing acceptability: comparison of two self-sampling modalities J Women’s Health (Larchmt) 2011 20 3 397 402 21351869
- [10]Snijders PJ Verhoef VM Arbyn M High-risk HPV testing on self-sampled versus clinician-collected specimens: a review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening Int J Cancer 2013 132 10 2223 2236 22907569
- [11]Howard M Lytwyn A Lohfeld L Barriers to acceptance of self-sampling for human papillomavirus across ethnolinguistic groups of women Can J Public Health 2009 100 5 365 369 19994740 PMC6973996
- [12]Anhang R Nelson JA Telerant R Chiasson MA Wright TC Jr Acceptability of self-collection of specimens for HPV DNA testing in an urban population J Women’s Health (Larchmt) 2005 14 8 721 728 16232104
- [14]van Til L MacQuarrie C Herbert R Understanding the barriers to cervical cancer screening among older women Qual Health Res 2003 13 8 1116 1131 14556422
- [15]Armstrong N Discourse and the individual in cervical cancer screening Health (London) 2007 11 1 69 85 17158832
- [16]Logan L McIlfatrick S Exploring women’s knowledge, experiences and perceptions of cervical cancer screening in an area of social deprivation Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2011 20 6 720 727 21521388
- [18]Markovic M Kesic V Topic L Matejic B Barriers to cervical cancer screening: a qualitative study with women in Serbia Soc Sci Med 2005 61 12 2528 2535 15953668
- [19]Bush J “It’s just part of being a woman”: cervical screening, the body and femininity Soc Sci Med 2000 50 3 429 444 10626766
- [20]Conrad P The Medicalization of Society. On the Transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders Baltimore John Hopkins University Press 2007
- [21]Martin E The Woman in the Body Boston Beacon Press 1987
- [22]Löwy I A Woman’s Disease, The History of Cervical Cancer Oxford Oxford University Press 2011
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
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
- Authors
- Burton-Jeangros, C., Fargnoli, V., & Petignat, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Geneva (CH)
- University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Fargnoli, Vanessa
- Venue
- International Journal of Women's Health
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-11
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 883
- ISSN
- 1179-1411 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4639555
- OpenAlex
- W2114635002
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 2.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Women s Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Krebsliga Schweiz
- 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
- HPV self-sampling, cervical cancer screening, women's attitudes, barriers to screening, Pap smear
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
