Back

Community awareness, access, and experiences of cervical screening following universal access to self-collection in Australia

Jennett, C. J.; Bavor, C.; Saunders, T.; Whop, L. J.; Mitchell, L. E.; Canfell, K.; Taylor, N.; Velentzis, L.; Egger, S.; Brotherton, J. M.; Nightingale, C.; Smith, M. A.

2026-05-17 public and global health
10.64898/2026.05.12.26353060 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Since July 2022, Australian National Cervical Screening Guidelines have recommended anyone eligible for cervical screening be offered the choice between having their sample collected by a clinician with a speculum, or self-collection using a vaginal swab. Method We recruited screen-eligible people to an online survey between December 2023 and April 2024, via a paid social media (Meta) campaign, and stakeholder and community networks. Using binary logistic regression, we assessed demographic and screening history factors associated with having previously heard of self-collection. In participants screened since July-2022, we assessed factors associated with being offered a choice between self-collection and clinician-collection; choosing self-collection (among those offered choice); and using self-collection (among all recently screened participants). Results Of the 9,928 participants, 70.2% had heard of self-collection. Among those screened since July 2022, 36.1% were offered a choice in screening method. Awareness was associated with increasing age (p-trend <0.001), with participants aged >65 years most likely to have heard of self-collection (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.69, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 1.31-2.18). Compared to participants who self-reported regularly attending cervical screening, both not-regular and never screeners (based on self-reported screening history, frequency, age and sexual history) were less likely to have heard of self-collection (aOR:0.80 [95%CI:0.72-0.89] and aOR:0.73 [95%CI:0.56-0.96], respectively; p<0.001). Participants who attended a specialised womens/sexual health clinic were more likely to have heard of self-collection (aOR:1.32 (95%CI:1.06-1.64), p;<0.001), and to report being offered choice (aOR:1.62 (95%CI 1.22-2.14), p<0.001) at their last cervical screen. Half of the participants who were offered a choice opted for self-collection (N=803/1,617; 49.7%). Not-regular screeners were twice as likely (aOR:2.31 (95%CI:1.74-3.07), p<0.001) to choose self-collection as regular-screeners. Conclusion Given almost 50% of women nationally are now choosing self-collection, these findings imply national uptake might be close to plateauing overall. In high income settings where a choice in screening methods is introduced with the aim of improving screening equity, resources, adequate training, and health promotion tools should be provided prior to program launch to support healthcare providers in offering choice and facilitate improved participation in screening programs. Raising community awareness of screening options is important and needs to reach under-screened groups.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.6%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.4%
3
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.3%
4
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.3%
5
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
6
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.3%
7
Sexually Transmitted Infections
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
8
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
9
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.7%
10
BMJ Paediatrics Open
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
11
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
12
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
13
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
14
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
15
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.1%
16
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
17
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
Journal of the International AIDS Society
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
19
Tropical Medicine & International Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
20
Public Health in Practice
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
21
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
22
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.7%
23
Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
24
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
25
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
26
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
Journal of Global Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
28
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
29
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
30
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%