Barriers and Facilitators to Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women in Rural Ontario, Canada: The Role of Self‐Collected HPV Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The addition of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing to primary cervical cancer screening provides an opportunity to employ less invasive cervical cancer screening modalities. The objective of this study was to explore the initial reaction and perception to HPV self-collected testing, in the context of current barriers and facilitators to cervical cancer screening, among women in an underscreened community in rural Ontario. METHODS: Age-stratified focus groups were conducted with women 18-70 years of age in rural Ontario to discuss cervical cancer screening. Women were recruited using purposive sampling of underscreened women and women in the general community. Qualitative thematic analysis of focus group transcripts identified the barriers, facilitators, and role of HPV self-collected testing for cervical cancer screening. RESULTS: Four focus groups were conducted with a total of 25 women. Overall, women were very positive toward self-collected HPV testing. HPV self-collected testing was felt to address many of the logistical (eg, inconvenient clinic hours, lack of time) and procedural barriers (embarrassment, lack of social distance in a small town) to current screening practices. However, self-collected HPV testing does not address barriers related to cervical cancer knowledge (eg, fear of cancer). Women identified issues related to test reliability, confidence in the ability to self-collect, and education around testing that would need to be addressed prior to implementation. Generational differences were noted in the acceptability of self-collected HPV testing between older and younger women. CONCLUSIONS: HPV self-collected testing was perceived as a facilitator for screening, and it was well accepted in this rural community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".