‘ <i>Why Didn't I Get That Choice?’</i> : A Qualitative Exploration of How Cervical Screening Choices Are Understood and Experienced by Screen‐Eligible People in Australia, Two Years After Self‐Collection Became an Option for All
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Australia's human papillomavirus (HPV)-based National Cervical Screening Program guidelines state that anyone eligible for screening should be offered a choice of using self-collection or clinician collection for initial screening. AIM: To explore the awareness and experiences of women and people with a cervix who have been screened since this choice became available in July 2022. METHODS: Semi-structured online or telephone interviews were conducted between February and May 2024 with 43 Victorian women and people with a cervix, aged 25-74 years. All participants self-reported completing a cervical screen within 12 months of our study. Interview data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed before being mapped to The Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Self-reported screening history was confirmed with de-identified data from the National Cancer Screening Register (NCSR) Victorian Raw Data Extract (November 2024). RESULTS: Fewer than half (19, 44%) of those interviewed were given a choice at their most recent screen, with variation in how options were presented by healthcare providers. Participants felt they lacked awareness and knowledge to feel confident in their options. Most participants viewed having a choice as important and, even if they did not prefer self-collection for themselves, noted benefits for others. Some felt disappointed or angry about not having a choice, while others were happy to defer to their doctor. Relationships with, and the views of, healthcare providers strongly influenced decision-making. Participants reflected on potential advantages of self-collection if it could reduce the cost of appointments and be accessed in more flexible ways. Among the 38 participants who consented to screening history verification, the self-reported data showed reasonable accuracy (67%) against the NCSR. CONCLUSION: Despite a clear policy directive for practitioners to offer a choice to all eligible individuals, many recent screeners were not offered the choice or lacked the knowledge, confidence and decision supports needed to make an informed choice. The choice of screening method appears strongly influenced by if, and how, options are presented by healthcare providers. A range of strategies are needed to ensure screeners feel empowered, supported and informed to make and carry out a real choice. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the public were involved in interviews. Findings were summarised and disseminated via a short report. A consumer advisory panel provided feedback on the content, readability and length of all patient-facing resources.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".