Objectives To evaluate the implementation and acceptability of the self‐collection cervical screening pathway since commencement of the renewed National Cervical Screening Program (rNCSP), from the perspectives of screening participants and primary care practitioners. Design, setting, participants Qualitative study; individual semi‐structured interviews with 45 screening participants and 18 primary care practitioners in Victoria who had engaged with the self‐collection pathway during the first 17 months of the rNCSP (1 December 2017 ‒ 30 April 2019). Results The self‐collection pathway was highly acceptable as an alternative cervical screening pathway for most participating screening participants and practitioners. Some screening participants indicated that they would not have been screened had the pathway not been available. Acceptability was lower among those who had tested positive for HPV types not 16/18, a result that requires additional testing of a clinician‐collected cervical sample. Use of the self‐collection pathway is driven more by practitioners than their patients. Interpretations of the self‐collection guidelines varied between practices. Barriers to expanding promotion of the pathway by practitioners included difficulties with identifying eligible participants. Conclusions Increasing the accessibility of the self‐collection pathway to under‐ and never screened women could reduce inequities in cervical cancer outcomes for those not participating in the main screening pathway. Practitioners should be provided resources to integrate self‐collection into routine practice and to efficiently implement the entire self‐collection pathway, in order to maximise its use and to optimise the experience for screening participants.

In 2018, there were an estimated 570,000 new cases of cervical cancer globally, with most of them occurring in women who either had no access to cervical screening, or had not participated in screening in regions where programs are available. Where programs are in place, a major barrier for women across many cultures has been the requirement to undergo a speculum examination. With the emergence of HPV-based primary screening, the option of self-collection (where the woman takes the sample from the vagina herself) may overcome this barrier, given that such samples when tested using a PCR-based HPV assay have similar sensitivity for the detection of cervical pre-cancers as practitioner-collected cervical specimens. Other advantages of HPV-based screening using self-collection, beyond the increase in acceptability to women, include scalability, efficiency, and high negative predictive value, allowing for long intervals between negative tests. Self-collection will be a key strategy for the successful scale up of cervical screening programs globally in response to the WHO call for all countries to work towards the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem. This review will examine self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening including the collection devices, assays and possible routine laboratory processes considering how they can be utilized in cervical screening programs.

The National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) in Australia underwent major changes on December 1 st , 2017. The program changed from 2-yearly Pap testing for women aged 18-69 years to 5-yearly HPV testing for women aged 25-74 years including differential management pathways for oncogenic HPV 16/18 positive versus HPV non16/18 positive test results and the option of self-collection for under-screened women. We conducted a survey among cervical screening providers in primary care to assess their level of preparedness in undertaking cervical screening before (pre-renewal) and after (post-renewal) the new program was implemented. Surveys were conducted between 14 th August and 30 th November 2017 (pre-renewal) and 9 th February and 26 th October 2018 (post-renewal) among cervical screening providers who attended education sessions related to the new guidelines. Preparedness was assessed in three areas: 1) level of comfort implementing the new guidelines (7 questions), 2) level of confidence in their ability to convey information about the new guidelines (9 questions) and 3) level of agreement regarding access to resources to support implementation (11 questions). Proportions were calculated for each question response and pre-and post-renewal periods compared using generalised linear models. Open-ended questions related to anticipated barriers and ways to overcome barriers were also included in the questionnaires. Compared to the pre-renewal period, a higher proportion of practitioners in the post-renewal period were more comfortable offering routine screening to women �25 years (p = 0.005) and more confident explaining the rationale for not screening before 25 years (p = 0.015); confident explaining a positive HPV 16/18 (p = 0.04) and HPV non 16/ 18(p = 0.013) test result and were comfortable with not referring women with a positive HPV non 16/18 test result and low grade/negative cytology for colposcopy (p = 0.01). A higher proportion of Victorian practitioners in the post-renewal period sample were also comfortable (p = 0.04) and confident (p = 0.015) recommending self-collection to under-screened women and agreed that self-collection is a reliable test (p = 0.003). The most commonly reported suggestion was to provide information, education and communication materials to

Background: In December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program transitioned from 2-yearly cytology-based to 5-yearly human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening, including a vaginal self-collection option. Until July 2022, this option was restricted to under- or never-screened people aged 30 years and older who refused a speculum exam. We investigated the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders involved in, or affected by, the initial implementation of the restricted self-collection pathway. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 49 stakeholders as part of the STakeholder Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were thematically analysed and coded to the Conceptual Framework for Implementation Outcomes. Results: Stakeholders viewed the introduction of self-collection as an exciting opportunity to provide under-screened people with an alternative to a speculum examination. Adoption in clinical practice, however, was impacted by a lack of clear communication and promotion to providers, and the limited number of laboratories accredited to process self-collected samples. Primary care providers tasked with communicating and offering self-collection described confusion about the availability, participant eligibility, pathology processes, and clinical management processes for self-collection. Regulatory delay in developing an agreed protocol to approve laboratory processing of self-collected swabs, and consequently initially having one laboratory nationally accredited to process samples, led to missed opportunities and misinformation regarding the pathway’s availability. Conclusions: Whilst the introduction of self-collection was welcomed, clear communication from Government regarding setbacks in implementation and how to overcome these in practice were needed. As Australia moves to a policy of providing everyone eligible for screening the choice of self-collection, wider promotion to providers and eligible people, clarity around pathology processes and the scaling up of test availability, as well as timely education and communication of clinical management practice guidelines, are needed to ensure smoother program delivery in the future. Other countries implementing self-collection policies can learn from the implementation challenges faced by Australia.

Background: Australia has had significant successes in the prevention of cervical cancer. However, there is considerable scope for improving screening participation. In December 2017, Australia shifted from cytology to a human papillomavirus–based screening program as part of the renewed National Cervical Screening Program. This provided the opportunity to introduce a clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening pathway, which allows screening participants aged 30 years or more and who are under-screened or never-screened to screen via a self-collected human papillomavirus test. Objective: This study aimed to explore screening participant experiences of a clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening pathway. Methods: Interviews (n = 45) were conducted with participants who had used the clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening pathway in the Australian National Cervical Screening Program between December 2017 and April 2019. Interviews were analyzed using template analysis. Results: Under-screened and never-screened participants reported a variety of interrelated barriers to cervical screening due to the nature of the test. For these participants, self-collection was a preferable way to perform screening as it overcame various barriers, was easy to use and promoted a sense of empowerment. Participants reported that the role of their practitioner was influential in their decision to undertake cervical screening, and that the support and information provided was a key factor in their experiences of the self-collection pathway. Conclusion: Findings support the use of a clinician-supported model of care, as an alternative screening modality in Australia’s National Cervical Screening Program. As more countries consider the move from a cytology to human papillomavirus–based cervical screening program, this model may assist in greater engagement of under-screened participants.