The success of cytology (Pap screening) programs is undeniable and has drastically reduced cervical cancer rates in high-income settings where it has been implemented 1 . However, cytology for primary cervical cancer screening has a number of limitations including poor sensitivity, a taxing demand on human and operational infrastructure, high health system costs, and limited uptake rates, leading researchers and policy-makers to question whether further gains in public health are possible using this approach 2 . Persistent infection with high-risk genotypes of human papillomavirus (hpv) is well established as the necessary cause for development of cervical cancer 3 . Research has shown a 30% improvement in sensitivity in detecting high-grade lesions, cervical squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (cin) grade 2 or greater (cin2+), can be achieved with high-risk hpv dna testing compared with cytology 4 . A negative hpv test confers two-fold greater reassurance against the development of cervical cancer over three years compared with a negative cytology test 2,5 . The Netherlands has recently transitioned from cytology to hpv testing for primary cervical cancer screening in their National program. Many organized screening programs intend to implement primary hpv screening 6-9 , including Australia, which will begin implementation in December 2017.A consistent barrier to cytology-based cervical cancer screening is non-attendance, which can be addressed through hpv testing using self-collected samples. Primary cervical cancer screening with hpv dna testing allows for the opportunity of self-collected samples, which is not possible with cytology. In hpv self-collection the sample is obtained vaginally by the woman herself, using a device such as a swab or brush. The swab is subsequently tested for high-risk strains of hpv in a laboratory. With this approach to screening, programs can mail self-collection kits directly to women who are overdue for screening as an alternative to a clinic-based visit. Self-collected cervical samples receiving hpv testing show comparable cin2+ sensitivity compared with clinician-collected samples tested with cytology and with hpv 10-12 . Self-collection has proven to be highly acceptable among women 13 .Huma n papillomav ir us self-collection has t he potential to overcome many of the personal and systemlevel barriers to screening that exist for cytology or other clinic-based screening methods. Some women, particularly those who have experienced abuse 14 or are otherwise marginalized, may find self-sampling preferable because of such things as cultural/religious embarrassment or discomfort associated with a pelvic exam 13,[15][16][17] . Time, transportation, inconvenient clinic hours, or not having a regular practitioner are also relevant factors associated with under-screening that can be mitigated through hpv self-collection using mailed samples 13,16,17 . However, there are psychosocial barriers to hpv screening, including women's lack of awareness and fears around hpv and cervical cancer...