TY - JOUR
T1 - Women’s preference for HPV self-sampling devices
T2 - a programme-embedded, large-scale paired comparative study within the cervical cancer screening programme in the Capital Region of Denmark
AU - Andreasen, Emilie Korsgaard
AU - Arum, Alexander
AU - Pedersen, Helle
AU - Dahl Nielsen, Trine
AU - Frandsen, Peter
AU - Pedersen, Birgitte Tønnes
AU - Serizawa, Reza
AU - Bonde, Jesper
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2026. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
PY - 2026/5/19
Y1 - 2026/5/19
N2 - Objective: To demonstrate women’s preferences for three human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling devices. Design: Cross-sectional, programme-embedded paired comparative study with randomised sampling order within device pairs. Setting: Organised cervical cancer screening programme in the Capital Region of Denmark. Participants: 1760 women eligible for cervical cancer screening (April 2024 to May 2025), assigned to one of three groups: (1) Evalyn versus FLOQSwab (n=518), (2) Evalyn versus SensiGrip (n=657) and (3) FLOQSwab versus SensiGrip (n=585). Outcome measures: Primary: device preference. Secondary: sampling-experience (self-reported). Data were assessed with χ² tests for preference, logistic regression for predictor analysis and Wilcoxon signed-rank equivalence test with two one-sided test procedures to assess sampling experience. Results: Overall, 95.7% rated HPV self-sampling a positive experience and 87.3% preferred HPV self-sampling in future screening. SensiGrip was preferred significantly over FLOQSwab (p<0.001), with participants rating ease of use and sampling certainty higher for SensiGrip. No significant differences in preference were observed between Evalyn and either alternative device in the primary analysis (p>0.05) although Evalyn scored higher in sampling certainty. Sampling order influenced preference in Evalyn comparisons. Prior experience with self-sampling, screening history and subcohort membership did not significantly influence device preference. Conclusions: Overall, participants rated self-sampling a positive experience. SensiGrip was preferred over FLOQSwab, while Evalyn demonstrated comparable overall acceptability to both alternative devices in the primary implementation-focused analysis. These findings suggest that device replacement would be acceptable from a screening participation perspective, particularly a shift from FLOQSwab to SensiGrip.
AB - Objective: To demonstrate women’s preferences for three human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling devices. Design: Cross-sectional, programme-embedded paired comparative study with randomised sampling order within device pairs. Setting: Organised cervical cancer screening programme in the Capital Region of Denmark. Participants: 1760 women eligible for cervical cancer screening (April 2024 to May 2025), assigned to one of three groups: (1) Evalyn versus FLOQSwab (n=518), (2) Evalyn versus SensiGrip (n=657) and (3) FLOQSwab versus SensiGrip (n=585). Outcome measures: Primary: device preference. Secondary: sampling-experience (self-reported). Data were assessed with χ² tests for preference, logistic regression for predictor analysis and Wilcoxon signed-rank equivalence test with two one-sided test procedures to assess sampling experience. Results: Overall, 95.7% rated HPV self-sampling a positive experience and 87.3% preferred HPV self-sampling in future screening. SensiGrip was preferred significantly over FLOQSwab (p<0.001), with participants rating ease of use and sampling certainty higher for SensiGrip. No significant differences in preference were observed between Evalyn and either alternative device in the primary analysis (p>0.05) although Evalyn scored higher in sampling certainty. Sampling order influenced preference in Evalyn comparisons. Prior experience with self-sampling, screening history and subcohort membership did not significantly influence device preference. Conclusions: Overall, participants rated self-sampling a positive experience. SensiGrip was preferred over FLOQSwab, while Evalyn demonstrated comparable overall acceptability to both alternative devices in the primary implementation-focused analysis. These findings suggest that device replacement would be acceptable from a screening participation perspective, particularly a shift from FLOQSwab to SensiGrip.
KW - Epidemiology
KW - GYNAECOLOGY
KW - HPV Infection
KW - Human Papillomavirus Viruses
KW - MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
KW - Public health
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105039294171
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-112643
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-112643
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 42156147
AN - SCOPUS:105039294171
SN - 2399-9772
VL - 16
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 5
M1 - e112643
ER -