Scholarlink

Purpose <p>In Australia, cervical screening is usually offered face-to-face through primary care. As self-collection offers flexibility in how and where screening can be accessed, we assessed participant preferences for flexible screening models.</p> Methods <p>We recruited women and people with a cervix aged 24–74&#xa0;years into a national survey (December 2023–April 2024) via a paid Meta campaign and community networks. Sociodemographic factors associated with a preference for appointment- or non-appointment-based models were assessed using logistic regression, stratified by age, &lt; 50 and ≥ 50&#xa0;years.</p> Results <p>Among 9,586 respondents, the median age was 41&#xa0;years, 67.9% lived in a major city, 82.5% were born in Australia, and 62.6% screened regularly. Most (82.6%) viewed flexible options for accessing screening as very important/important.</p> <p>Respondents favored non-appointment-based compared to appointment-based models, with 53.5% of those &lt; 50 (<i>n</i> = 4,842) and 49.5% of those ≥ 50 (<i>n</i> = 1,257) preferring to receive a swab in the mail when due. Non-appointment-based models were preferred by participants aged &lt; 50 and ≥ 50&#xa0;years who were never-screened (adjOR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.18–1.96, <i>p</i> = 0.001; adjOR = 2.91, 95% CI = 1.67–5.09, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), irregular screeners (adjOR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.36–1.85, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001; adjOR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.17–1.98, <i>p</i> = 0.002) and recently eligible for screening (adjOR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.08–2.50, <i>p</i> = 0.02) compared to regular screeners. Convenience was the most common reason for participants’ preferred screening model (87.4% non-appointment-based; 55.1% appointment-based).</p> Conclusion <p>Flexibility in how cervical screening can be accessed appeals to many screen-eligible people. Further research trialing different models assessing screening uptake and clinical pathways to follow-up care is needed.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

How would Australian women and people with a cervix like to access self-collection for cervical screening? Screening preferences from a national survey

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月10日

查看全文
  • Claire Bavor,
  • Chloe Jennett,
  • Emily Phillips,
  • Louise Mitchell,
  • Tessa Saunders,
  • Lisa Whop,
  • Angela Kelly-Hanku,
  • Deborah Bateson,
  • Julia M. L. Brotherton,
  • Megan A. Smith,
  • Claire Nightingale

摘要

Purpose

In Australia, cervical screening is usually offered face-to-face through primary care. As self-collection offers flexibility in how and where screening can be accessed, we assessed participant preferences for flexible screening models.

Methods

We recruited women and people with a cervix aged 24–74 years into a national survey (December 2023–April 2024) via a paid Meta campaign and community networks. Sociodemographic factors associated with a preference for appointment- or non-appointment-based models were assessed using logistic regression, stratified by age, < 50 and ≥ 50 years.

Results

Among 9,586 respondents, the median age was 41 years, 67.9% lived in a major city, 82.5% were born in Australia, and 62.6% screened regularly. Most (82.6%) viewed flexible options for accessing screening as very important/important.

Respondents favored non-appointment-based compared to appointment-based models, with 53.5% of those < 50 (n = 4,842) and 49.5% of those ≥ 50 (n = 1,257) preferring to receive a swab in the mail when due. Non-appointment-based models were preferred by participants aged < 50 and ≥ 50 years who were never-screened (adjOR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.18–1.96, p = 0.001; adjOR = 2.91, 95% CI = 1.67–5.09, p < 0.001), irregular screeners (adjOR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.36–1.85, p < 0.001; adjOR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.17–1.98, p = 0.002) and recently eligible for screening (adjOR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.08–2.50, p = 0.02) compared to regular screeners. Convenience was the most common reason for participants’ preferred screening model (87.4% non-appointment-based; 55.1% appointment-based).

Conclusion

Flexibility in how cervical screening can be accessed appeals to many screen-eligible people. Further research trialing different models assessing screening uptake and clinical pathways to follow-up care is needed.