May 08, 2026
Version 3
Implementation of HPV Self-Sampling in Cervical Screening: A Scoping Review of Barriers, Facilitators and Key Challenges (protocol) V.3
- Daisy Urquhart-Dixon1,
- Natalia Calanzani1,
- Lisa Iversen1,
- Sharon Hanley1
- 1Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK
Protocol Citation: Daisy Urquhart-Dixon, Natalia Calanzani, Lisa Iversen, Sharon Hanley 2026. Implementation of HPV Self-Sampling in Cervical Screening: A Scoping Review of Barriers, Facilitators and Key Challenges (protocol). protocols.io https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.e6nvww7e9vmk/v3Version created by Daisy Urquhart-Dixon
License: This is an open access protocol distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Protocol status: Working
We use this protocol and it's working
Created: May 07, 2026
Last Modified: May 08, 2026
Protocol Integer ID: 316567
Keywords: Cervical screening, self-sampling, HPV, implementation strategies, process evaluation, COM-B, informing future cervical screening programme, cervical screening programme, future cervical screening programme, women in cervical screening programme, implementation studies of cervical screening, sampling in cervical screening, cervical screening, hpv self, implementation of hpv self, human papillomavirus, hpv, screening, independent screening, scoping review guidance, sampling intervention, based screening, rayyan for screening, scoping review, scoping review of barrier, text screening against eligibility criteria, review guidance from the joanna briggs institute, success of any intervention, text screening, implementation outcomes such as uptake, reported implementation outcome, screened women
Funders Acknowledgements:
Cancer Research UK
Grant ID: RG-17947-10
Abstract
Introduction: Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling has emerged as a promising strategy to reach under-screened women in cervical screening programmes, particularly among populations hesitant to undergo clinician-based screening. Understanding how to best implement self-sampling and the contextual factors that influence the success of any intervention is essential for informing future cervical screening programmes.
Aim: This scoping review will map the state of the current evidence from process evaluations and implementation studies of cervical screening which incorporates HPV self-sampling, focusing on reported implementation outcomes such as uptake and acceptability, process measures and barriers and facilitators.
Methods: Informed by scoping review guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), systematic searches using keywords and subject headings will be carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus. Grey literature will also be searched, including policy documents, theses and expert group reports. All citations will be imported into RAYYAN for screening, with screening of titles and abstracts for relevance, followed by independent full-text screening against eligibility criteria. We will include primary studies (including programme evaluations and grey literature) published since 2011 (any language, any country) that report on the implementation of self-sampling interventions (adopted strategies, measured outcomes, identified barriers and facilitators). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods designs are eligible for inclusion. Editorials, abstracts from Conference Proceedings (without a full article), commentaries and reviews will be excluded. Data from included studies will be extracted using a purpose-built extraction tool in Microsoft Excel capturing study characteristics, implementation strategies and how they were operationalised, and key barriers and facilitators. Analyses will include descriptive summaries, classification of implementation strategies, thematic synthesis of determinants and mapping of implementation outcomes. Synthesis will be guided by a behaviour change model (COM-B) and implementation outcomes widely described in the literature. Findings will be presented narratively, with quantitative findings presented in tables.
Attachments
Abstract
Introduction: Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling has emerged as a promising strategy to reach under-screened women in cervical screening programmes, particularly among populations hesitant to undergo clinician-based screening. Understanding how to best implement self-sampling and the contextual factors that influence the success of any intervention is essential for informing future cervical screening programmes.
Aim: This scoping review will map the state of the current evidence from process evaluations and implementation studies of cervical screening which incorporates HPV self-sampling, focusing on reported implementation outcomes such as uptake and acceptability, process measures, and barriers and facilitators.
Methods: Informed by scoping review guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), systematic searches using keywords and subject headings will be carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus. Grey literature will also be searched, including policy documents, theses and expert group reports. All citations will be imported into RAYYAN for screening, with screening of titles and abstracts for relevance, followed by independent full-text screening against eligibility criteria. We will include primary studies (including programme evaluations and grey literature) published since 2011 (any language, any country) that report on the implementation of self-sampling interventions (adopted strategies, measured outcomes, identified barriers and facilitators). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods designs are eligible for inclusion. Editorials, abstracts from Conference Proceedings (without a full article), commentaries and reviews will be excluded. Data from included studies will be extracted using a purpose-built extraction tool in Microsoft Excel capturing study characteristics, implementation strategies and how they were operationalised, and key barriers and facilitators. Analyses will include descriptive summaries, classification of implementation strategies, thematic synthesis of determinants and mapping of implementation outcomes. Synthesis will be guided by a behaviour change model (COM-B) and implementation outcomes widely described in the literature. Findings will be presented narratively, with findings presented in figures and tables.
Key Words
Cervical screening; self-sampling; HPV; implementation strategies; process evaluation; COM-B
Introduction/Rationale
Cervical cancer is caused by a persistent infection with one or more high-risk (hr) human papillomavirus (HPV). It is the fourth most common cancer in women globally[1]. In 2022, Globocan reported over 662,301 cases and 348,874 deaths worldwide [2]. Cervical cancer is a disease of inequity, both within and across countries – it remains the second most common cancer among women of reproductive age[3], with a disproportionate burden falling on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where nearly 94% of deaths occurred in 2022[1,4]. In Scotland, a high-income country, the number of cancer deaths is four times higher in those living in the most deprived areas compared to those in the least deprived [5]. Lower vaccination uptake (around 75% in comparison to 90% in affluent areas) and lower screening attendance means women in deprived communities are more likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer at a later stage[5]. To address cervical cancer inequities, in 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) launched the Global Initiative for Accelerated Elimination of Cervical Cancer[4,6]. Elimination is defined as <4 cases per 100,000 women. In order to reach and maintain the elimination threshold by 2099, WHO announced three key pillars and corresponding 90-70-90 targets that need to be met by 2030 [4,6]:
- Vaccination: 90% of girls fully vaccinated with HPV vaccine by age 15 years
- Screening: 70% of women are screened with a high-performance test by 35 years of age and again by 45 years of age
- Treatment: 90% of women with cervical disease receive treatment (90% of women with precancer, and 90% of women with invasive cancer managed)
While vaccination will drive elimination, improving screening coverage will accelerate time to elimination as there are still women who were not eligible for vaccination, who do not have access to vaccination, or are vaccine-hesitant due to misinformation [7–9]. Most vaccination guidelines around the world recommend routine HPV vaccination to girls between the ages of 9-14, and where feasible, boys and high-risk individuals, such as men who have sex with men and sex workers [10]. Many at-risk individuals who were born before the vaccination threshold or do not fall into high-risk categories are left unprotected[11], and therefore screening is their primary means of prevention[12].
There are many reasons for non-attendance at cervical screening, such as embarrassment, fear of pain or what the test may find, lack of awareness, history of trauma, practical barriers, or various religious or cultural influences[13]. Self-sampling using a vaginal swab for high-risk HPV offers privacy, convenience and the potential to reduce fear, stigma and discomfort associated with clinician-taken samples[14]. It can expand coverage in both established and resource-limited screening contexts[15,16], and is recommended by the WHO to improve uptake in under screened individuals and non-attenders[17]. Evidence suggests it is acceptable and cost-effective for under-screened populations[16].
The transition from cytology to HPV testing as the primary method of cervical cancer screening has enabled the introduction of self-sampling as an alternative for individuals facing barriers to clinic-based screening[18]. Cytology requires a cervical sample and involves the use of a speculum to visualise the cervix for this sample to be taken[19] – one of the main reasons many women avoid attending screening as this is often an uncomfortable procedure [20]. Primary HPV testing, however, tests if the virus that causes cervical cancer is present, and this can be detected in the vagina, meaning that there is no need for cervical visualisation with a speculum[21].
Despite growing interest, there are limited process evaluations of self-sampling implementation for cervical screening, particularly analyses grounded in behaviour change frameworks[22] and implementation theories/frameworks. Incorporating theory and frameworks when implementing an intervention helps researchers understand the underlying factors that explain how and why the intervention does – or does not – work[23,24]. Process evaluation is essential for understanding the how and why interventions work, or fail, in specific contexts[25,26]. Without it, there is a risk of scaling interventions that are ineffective or inequitable. For cervical screening, where cultural norms, health system structures and resource availability vary widely, process evaluations help identify factors that can influence real-world uptake and impact.
This scoping review aims to map the state of the current evidence from process evaluations and implementation studies of cervical cancer screening programmes incorporating HPV self-sampling. The aim will be met by addressing three questions:
- Which implementation outcomes and process factors have been investigated?
- What are the reported barriers and facilitators to implementation?
- Which theoretical models, frameworks and implementation science approaches have been used?
Methods
Protocol and registration:
This scoping review will be conducted following the guidance of PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR)[27], in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews[28]. This review title will be registered with Protocols.io (https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.e6nvww7e9vmk/v2)
Eligibility Criteria:
The PCC acronym (Population, Concept, Context) was utilised to establish the inclusion criteria.
This review will include studies involving women eligible for cervical cancer screening, primary care providers, programme implementers, policymakers and other stakeholders involved in self-sampling cervical screening.
The core concept of interest is cervical screening through implementation of HPV self-sampling. An inclusive approach will be adopted for implementation outcomes, process measures and barriers and facilitators to allow for the inclusion of studies adopting different methodologies, informed by different theories and frameworks. Expected outcomes/measures include feasibility, acceptability, uptake, dosage, reach, fidelity, appropriateness, adoption, penetration, sustainability, contextual factors, and mechanisms of impact.
All geographic settings, health system contexts and service delivery models will be considered. Studies from countries of all income level will be eligible. No restrictions will be placed on setting (e.g., community-based, primary care, laboratory-based, screening programme settings) or language.
Given the objective of a scoping review is to map existing evidence, a wide range of study designs will be included, consistent with PRISMA‑ScR guidance[27], to encompass all relevant evidence types that can inform understanding of implementation phenomena in the context of HPV self-sampling. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods designs are eligible for inclusion. We will include primary studies (including programme evaluations and grey literature) published since 2011. This year was chosen as this was when evidence on the COM-B model (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour) was first published[22]. Editorials, abstracts from Conference Proceedings (without a full article), commentaries and reviews will be excluded. Reference lists of relevant reviews identified in searches will be checked.
Information Sources and Search Strategy:
An initial limited search of MEDLINE (Ovid) was undertaken to identify articles on the topic. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe the articles were used to develop a full search strategy for MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO (all Ovid), Web of Science, and Scopus (see Appendix I). A search strategy was developed with the assistance of an expert librarian for Medline using keywords and their synonyms (including “cervical cancer screening”, “self‑sampling”, “implementation”, “process evaluation” and “COM‑B”) and subject headings. The Medline search strategy was adapted for each included database and/or information source. The reference lists of included sources will be screened for additional eligible primary studies.
Sources of unpublished studies and grey literature include policy documents, expert group reports, organisational publications (WHO, IARC, national screening bodies), theses and dissertations (ProQuest).
Selection of Sources of Evidence:
All identified citations will be collated and uploaded into the RAYYAN software[29] and duplicates will be removed. Titles and abstracts will be screened for relevance, and potentially relevant full-text sources will then be independently screened against eligibility criteria by DUD, with second screening performed between NC, LI and SH. Full text not freely available online will be requested via the University of Aberdeen’s Library services. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in and presented in a PRISMA flow diagram[30]
Data Extraction and Data Items:
Data will be extracted from included papers using a purpose-built data extraction tool. The data extracted will include specific details about the study (name, year), design, setting, implementation strategy, how this strategy was operationalised, outcomes measured, theories and frameworks that informed each study, key findings for the implementation outcomes, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. The form will first be piloted on two included papers and results compared to ensure consistency between reviewers. The draft data extraction tool will then be modified and revised as necessary before data extraction for the remaining included studies – a draft extraction tool is attached in the appendices (Appendix II). Any modifications will be detailed in the scoping review manuscript. Data extraction will be carried out by DUD, and checked by NC, LI or SH, with an additional 30% of studies being extracted independently by at least two reviewers. If required, authors of papers will be contacted to request missing or additional data.
Data Analysis:
Data analysis will focus on providing a descriptive overview of the implementation strategies used to support HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening, alongside the contextual factors that influence delivery, adherence, and reported outcomes. Extracted data will be summarised using basic descriptive techniques (study characteristics, populations, settings and implementation approaches).
In keeping with the scoping review methodology, no synthesis of outcomes or meta-analysis will be undertaken. Qualitative data will be analysed descriptively, using simple coding to categorise information relevant to implementation determinants, reported barriers and facilitators. To support conceptual clarity, these findings will then be mapped using the COM-B model and the TDF (Theoretical Domains Framework) as an organising framework to categorise determinants relating to capability, opportunity and motivation, and further classify barriers, facilitators and intervention functions.
Using COM-B and TDF provides a transparent and contemporary structure for describing behavioural determinants within implementation research. Limiting the search to studies published after the development of COM-B ensures that the included research is informed by, or compatible with, current behaviour change theory. All analytic decisions will be explicitly reported to ensure clarity, transparency and justification of the chosen approach.
Acknowledgements
Melanie Bickerton (Librarian at University of Aberdeen) for assistance with search strategy
Funding
Research conducted alongside the AYEScreen study, funded by Cancer Research UK. DUD is supported by a Cancer Research UK PhD studentship (RG-17947-10). The evidence presented here does not represent the views of CRUK.
Potential Conflicts of Interest
SH has received conference support from COPAN.
References
[1] Cervical Cancer . World Health Organisation 2025:e161–9.
[2] Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, Laversanne M, Colombet M, Mery
L, et al. Cancer site ranking. Lyon, France: 2024.
[3] Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjosé S, Saraiya M,
Ferlay J, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in
2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2020;8:e191–203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6.
[4] WHO. Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative.
Https://WwwWhoInt/Initiatives/Cervical-Cancer-Elimination-Initiative n.d.
[5] Scottish Government. Cervical Cancer Elimination in
Scotland Expert Group Final Report.
Https://WwwGovScot/Publications/Cervical-Cancer-Elimination-Scotland-Expert-Group-Final-Report/Pages/11/
2025.
[6] WHO. Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of
cervical cancer as a public health problem. 2020.
[7] Falcaro M, Castañón A, Ndlela B, Sasieni P. Association
between HPV vaccination and cervical screening policy changes and cervical
cancer incidence and grade-3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence in
England, 2006–2020: a population-based trends analysis. The Lancet Regional
Health - Europe 2025;49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101157.
[8] Han J, Zhang L, Chen Y, Zhang Y, Wang L, Cai R, et al.
Global HPV vaccination programs and coverage rates: a systematic review.
EClinicalMedicine 2025;84:103290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103290.
[9] Global evidence highlights social roots of HPV vaccine
hesitancy.
Https://WwwCochraneOrg/about-Us/News/Global-Evidence-Highlights-Social-Roots-Hpv-Vaccine-Hesitancy
2025.
[10] Human papillomavirus vaccines: WHO
position paper, December 2022.
Https://WwwWhoInt/Publications/i/Item/Who-Wer9750-645-672 2022.
[11] UK Health Security Agency. Information
on the HPV vaccination from September 2023.
Https://WwwGovUk/Government/Publications/Hpv-Vaccine-Vaccination-Guide-Leaflet/Information-on-the-Hpv-Vaccination-from-September-2023
2023.
[12] Falcaro M, Castañon A, Ndlela B,
Checchi M, Soldan K, Lopez-Bernal J, et al. The effects of the national HPV
vaccination programme in England, UK, on cervical cancer and grade 3 cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia incidence: a register-based observational study. The
Lancet 2021;398:2084–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02178-4.
[13] Shpendi S, Norman P, Gibson-Miller J,
Webster R. Identifying the key barriers, facilitators and factors associated
with cervical cancer screening attendance in young women: A systematic review.
Women’s Health 2025;21. https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057251324309.
[14] Li X, Zheng W. Enhancing cervical
cancer screening: the promise and future of self-sampling HPV testing.
Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine 2024;4.
https://doi.org/10.1136/gocm-2024-000059.
[15] Huntington S, Smith JS, Nuttall D,
Polokaova A, Smith PM, Hamlyn-Williams C, et al. Evidence from Europe on
implementation, participation and performance of self-collection for cervical
cancer screening. Future Oncology 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/14796694.2024.2409625.
[16] Viviano M, Tran PL, Kenfack B, Catarino
R, Akaaboune M, Temogne L, et al. Self-versus physician-collected samples for
the follow-up of human papillomavirus-positive women in sub-Saharan Africa.
Int J Womens Health 2018;10:187–94. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S154212.
[17] Colonetti T, Rodrigues Uggioni ML,
Meller dos Santos AL, Michels Uggioni N, Uggioni Elibio L, Balbinot EL, et al.
Self-sampling for HPV testing in cervical cancer screening: A scoping review.
European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
2024;296:20–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.02.032.
[18] Future optimisation of cervical
screening | Cancer Research UK.
Https://WwwCancerresearchukOrg/Health-Professional/Cancer-Screening/Cervical-Screening/Research-Optimisation
n.d.
[19] Topics 7 and 8: anatomy, physiology,
and taking cervical samples.
Https://WwwGovUk/Government/Publications/Cervical-Screening-Cervical-Sample-Taker-Training/Topics-7-and-8-Anatomy-Physiology-and-Taking-Cervical-Samples#taking-the-Sample
2025.
[20] Gillibrand S, Gibson H, Howells K,
Urwin S, Davies JC, Crosbie EJ, et al. Exploring the barriers to cervical
screening and perspectives on new self-sampling methods amongst under-served
groups. BMC Health Serv Res 2025;25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-12098-2.
[21] Daponte N, Valasoulis G, Michail G,
Magaliou I, Daponte AI, Garas A, et al. HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical
Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature.
Cancers (Basel) 2023;15. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15061669.
[22] Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The
behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing
behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science 2011;6.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.
[23] Davidoff F, Dixon-Woods M, Leviton L,
Michie S. Demystifying theory and its use in improvement. BMJ Qual Saf
2015;24:228–38. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003627.
[24] Nilsen P. Making sense of
implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science
2015;10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0.
[25] De Silva MJ, Breuer E, Lee L, Asher L,
Chowdhary N, Lund C, et al. Theory of Change: A theory-driven approach to
enhance the Medical Research Council’s framework for complex interventions.
Trials 2014;15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-267.
[26] Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L,
Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions:
Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ (Online) 2015;350.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258.
[27] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien
KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews
(PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73.
https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.
[28] Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC,
Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the
conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth 2020;18:2119–26.
https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167.
[29] Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z,
Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev
2016;5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.
[30] PRISMA 2020 flow diagram — PRISMA
statement. Https://WwwPrisma-StatementOrg/Prisma-2020-Flow-Diagram n.d.
Appendices
Appendix I:
Search Strategies
MEDLINE
1 Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/
2 cervical cancer*.tw.
3 cervical carcinoma*.tw.
4 uterine cervical dysplasia.tw.
5 (cervix adj4 (cancer* or neoplasm* or carcinoma*)).tw.
6 Papillomavirus Infections/
7 (human papilloma virus* or human papiloma virus* or human papillomavirus* or
human papilomavirus* or papillomaviridae or HPV or high-risk HPV or high risk
HPV or hrHPV).tw.
8 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7
9 (self-sampl* or self sampl* or selfsampl* or self-collect* or self collect*
or selfcollect* or self-test* or self test* or selftest* or self-screen* or
self screen* or selfscreen* or home-based test* or home based test* or home
test* or home-test* or hometest* or pharmacy-based test* or pharmacy based
test* or self-administer* or self administer* or selfadminister*).tw.
10 (acceptance or acceptab* or uptake or adopt* or implement* or feasibil* or
fidelity or barrier* or facilitat* or challeng* or cost* or penetrat* or
sustainab* or evaluat* or utiliz* or utilis*).tw.
11 (process evaluation or nested or program theory or programme theory or
RE-AIM or CFIR or CICI or Implementation Outcome* or Behaviour Change Wheel or
BCW or Normali?ation Process Theory or NPT or COM-B or TDF or Theoretical
Domains Framework or MRC Framework or Medical Research Council Framework or
theory of change or logic model).tw.
12 10 or 11
13 8 and 9 and 12
14 limit 13 to yr="2011 -Current"
Embase
1 exp
uterine cervix cancer/ or exp uterine cervix neoplasm/
2 cervical
cancer?.tw.
3 cervical
carcinoma?.tw.
4 (uterine
cervical dysplasia or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or CIN).tw.
5 (cervix
adj4 (cancer? or neoplasm? or carcinoma?)).tw.
6 (human
papilloma virus* or human papiloma virus* or human papillomavirus* or human
papilomavirus* or papillomaviridae or HPV or high-risk HPV or high risk HPV or
hrHPV).tw.
7 1
or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6
8 (self-sampl*
or self sampl* or selfsampl* or self-collect* or self collect* or selfcollect*
or self-test* or self test* or selftest* or self-screen* or self screen* or
selfscreen* or home-based test* or home based test* or home test* or home-test*
or hometest* or pharmacy-based test* or pharmacy based test* or
self-administer* or self administer* or selfadminister*).tw.
9 7
and 8
10 (acceptance
or acceptab* or uptake or adopt* or implement* or feasibil* or fidelity or
barrier* or facilitat* or challeng* or cost* or penetrat* or sustainab* or
evaluat* or utiliz* or utilis*).tw.
11 (process
evaluation or nested or program theory or programme theory or RE-AIM or CFIR or
CICI or Implementation Outcome* or Behaviour Change Wheel or BCW or
Normali?ation Process Theory or NPT or COM-B or TDF or Theoretical Domains
Framework or MRC Framework or Medical Research Council Framework or theory of
change or logic model).tw.
12 10
or 11
13 7
and 9 and 12
14 limit
13 to yr="2011 -Current"
PsycINFO
1 (((cervical
cancer* or cervical carcinoma* or cervix) adj4 (cancer* or neoplasm* or
carcinoma*)) or uterine cervical dysplasia or cervical intraepithelial
neoplasia or CIN).tw.
2 (human
papilloma virus* or human papiloma virus* or human papillomavirus* or human
papilomavirus* or papillomaviridae or HPV or high-risk HPV or high risk HPV or
hrHPV).tw.
3 1
or 2
4 (self-sampl*
or self sampl* or selfsampl* or self-collect* or self collect* or selfcollect*
or self-test* or self test* or selftest* or self-screen* or self screen* or
selfscreen* or home-based test* or home based test* or home test* or home-test*
or hometest* or pharmacy-based test* or pharmacy based test* or
self-administer* or self administer* or selfadminister*).tw.
5 3
and 4
6 (acceptance
or acceptab* or uptake or adopt* or implement* or feasibil* or fidelity or
barrier* or facilitat* or challeng* or cost* or penetrat* or sustainab* or
evaluat* or utiliz* or utilis*).tw.
7 (process
evaluation or nested or program theory or programme theory or RE-AIM or CFIR or
CICI or Implementation Outcome* or Behaviour Change Wheel or BCW or
Normali?ation Process Theory or NPT or COM-B or TDF or Theoretical Domains
Framework or MRC Framework or Medical Research Council Framework or theory of
change or logic model).tw.
8 6
or 7
9 5
and 8
10 limit
9 to yr="2011 -Current"
Scopus
TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( "cervical cancer*" OR "cervical
carcinoma*" OR "uterine cervical dysplasia" OR ( cervix W/4 (
cancer* OR neoplasm* OR carcinoma* ) ) OR "Papillomavirus Infections"
OR "human papilloma virus*" OR "human papiloma virus*" OR
"human papillomavirus*" OR "human papilomavirus*" OR
"papillomaviridae" OR "HPV" OR "high-risk HPV" OR
"high risk HPV" OR "hrHPV" ) AND ( "self-sampl*"
OR "self sampl*" OR "selfsampl*" OR
"self-collect*" OR "self collect*" OR
"selfcollect*" OR "self-test*" OR "self test*" OR
"selftest*" OR "self-screen*" OR "self screen*"
OR "selfscreen*" OR "home-based test*" OR "home based
test*" OR "home-test*" OR "home test*" OR
"hometest*" OR "pharmacy-based test*" OR "pharmacy
based test*" OR "self-administer*" OR "self
administer*" OR "selfadminister*" ) AND ( "acceptance"
OR "acceptab*" OR "uptake" OR "adopt*" OR
"implement*" OR "feasibil*" OR "fidelity" OR
"barrier*" OR "facilitat*" OR "challeng*" OR
"cost*" OR "penetrat*" OR "sustainab*" OR
"evaluat*" OR "utiliz*" OR "utilis*" OR "process
evaluation" OR "nested" OR "program theory" OR
"programme theory" OR "RE-AIM" OR "CFIR" OR
"CICI" OR "Implementation Outcome*" OR "Behaviour
Change Wheel" OR "BCW" OR "Normali?ation Process
Theory" OR "NPT" OR "COM-B" OR "TDF" OR
"Theoretical Domains Framework" OR "MRC Framework" OR
"Medical Research Council Framework" OR "theory of change"
OR "logic model" ) ) AND PUBYEAR > 2011
Web of Science
TS=(("Uterine
Cervical Neoplasms" OR "cervical cancer*" OR "cervical
carcinoma*" OR "uterine cervical dysplasia" OR
("cervix" NEAR/4 ("cancer*" OR "neoplasm*" OR
"carcinoma*")) OR "Papillomavirus Infections" OR
"human papilloma virus*" OR "human papiloma virus*" OR
"human papillomavirus*" OR "human papilomavirus*" OR
“papillomaviridae” OR “HPV” OR "high-risk HPV" OR "high risk
HPV" OR "hrHPV") AND ("self-sampl*" OR "self
sampl*" OR “selfsampl*” OR "self-collect*" OR "self
collect*" OR “selfcollect*” OR "self-test*" OR "self
test*" OR “selftest*” OR "self-screen*" OR "self
screen*" OR “selfscreen*” OR "home-based test*" OR "home
based test*" OR "home-test*" OR "home test*" OR
“hometest*” OR "pharmacy-based test*" OR "pharmacy based
test*" OR "self-administer*" OR "self administer*" OR
“selfadminister*”) AND (“acceptance” OR “acceptab*” OR “uptake” OR “adopt*” OR
“implement*” OR “feasibil*” OR “fidelity” OR “barrier*” OR “facilitat*” OR
“challeng*” OR “cost*” OR “penetrat*” OR “sustainab*” OR “evaluat*” OR “utiliz*”
OR “utilis*” OR "process evaluation" OR “nested” OR "program
theory" OR "programme theory" OR "RE-AIM" OR
"CFIR" OR "CICI" OR "Implementation Outcome*" OR
"Behaviour Change Wheel" OR “BCW” OR "Normali?ation Process
Theory" OR “NPT” OR "COM-B" OR "TDF" OR
"Theoretical Domains Framework" OR "MRC Framework" OR
"Medical Research Council Framework" OR "theory of change"
OR "logic model"))
ProQuest
TI,AB,SU( (
"cervical cancer*" OR "cervical carcinoma*" OR
"uterine cervical dysplasia" Or (cervix NEAR/4 (cancer* OR neoplasm*
OR carcinoma*)) OR "papillomavirus infections" OR "human
papilloma virus*" OR "human papiloma virus*" OR "human
papillomavirus*" OR "human papilomavirus*" OR
"papillomaviridae" OR "HPV" OR "high-risk HPV" OR
"high risk HPV" OR "hrHPV") AND ( "self-sampl*"
OR "self sampl*" OR selfsampl* OR "self-collect*" OR
"self collect*" OR selfcollect* OR "self-test*" OR
"self test*" OR selftest* OR "self-screen*" OR "self
screen*" OR “selfscreen*” OR "home-based test*" OR "home
based test*" OR "home-test*" OR "home test*" OR
hometest* OR "pharmacy-based test*" OR "pharmacy based test*"
OR "self-administer*" OR "self administer*" OR
“selfadminister*”) AND (“acceptance” OR “acceptab*” OR “uptake” OR “adopt*” OR
“implement*” OR “feasibil*” OR “fidelity” OR “barrier*” OR “facilitat*” OR
“challeng*” OR “cost*” OR “penetrat*” OR “sustainab*” OR “evaluat*” OR
“utiliz*” OR “utilis*” OR "process evaluation" OR “nested” OR
"program theory" OR "programme theory" OR
"RE-AIM" OR "CFIR" OR "CICI" OR
"Implementation Outcome*" OR "Behaviour Change Wheel" OR
“BCW” OR "Normali?ation Process Theory" OR “NPT” OR "COM-B"
OR "TDF" OR "Theoretical Domains Framework" OR "MRC
Framework" OR "Medical Research Council Framework" OR
"theory of change" OR "logic model”) AND PD (>2011) )
Appendix II:
Data Extraction Tool
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | |
| Citation | Study aim | Study characteristics | Theoretical Foundations | Intervention/implementation strategy | Screening approach | Resources | Outcomes | Barriers | Facilitators | Evidence gaps/future needs | |
| Author (year) | Primary research question or objective | Design, Methods and Population/Setting | Theory/framework used and rationale/how it informed the study | Strategy components, delivery, fidelity and quality assurance | Delivery method and additional mechanisms (opt in/out, reminders, incentives) | Cost/requirements | Outcomes measured/implementation outcomes (adoption, reach, acceptability, feasibility, fidelity, sustainability…) | List of barriers identified | List of facilitators identified | Identified gaps/needs | |
Protocol references
[1] Cervical Cancer . World Health Organisation 2025:e161–9.
[2] Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, Laversanne M, Colombet M, Mery
L, et al. Cancer site ranking. Lyon, France: 2024.
[3] Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjosé S, Saraiya M,
Ferlay J, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in
2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2020;8:e191–203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6.
[4] WHO. Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative.
Https://WwwWhoInt/Initiatives/Cervical-Cancer-Elimination-Initiative n.d.
[5] Scottish Government. Cervical Cancer Elimination in
Scotland Expert Group Final Report.
Https://WwwGovScot/Publications/Cervical-Cancer-Elimination-Scotland-Expert-Group-Final-Report/Pages/11/
2025.
[6] WHO. Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of
cervical cancer as a public health problem. 2020.
[7] Falcaro M, Castañón A, Ndlela B, Sasieni P. Association
between HPV vaccination and cervical screening policy changes and cervical
cancer incidence and grade-3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence in
England, 2006–2020: a population-based trends analysis. The Lancet Regional
Health - Europe 2025;49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101157.
[8] Han J, Zhang L, Chen Y, Zhang Y, Wang L, Cai R, et al.
Global HPV vaccination programs and coverage rates: a systematic review.
EClinicalMedicine 2025;84:103290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103290.
[9] Global evidence highlights social roots of HPV vaccine
hesitancy.
Https://WwwCochraneOrg/about-Us/News/Global-Evidence-Highlights-Social-Roots-Hpv-Vaccine-Hesitancy
2025.
[10] Human papillomavirus vaccines: WHO
position paper, December 2022.
Https://WwwWhoInt/Publications/i/Item/Who-Wer9750-645-672 2022.
[11] UK Health Security Agency. Information
on the HPV vaccination from September 2023.
Https://WwwGovUk/Government/Publications/Hpv-Vaccine-Vaccination-Guide-Leaflet/Information-on-the-Hpv-Vaccination-from-September-2023
2023.
[12] Falcaro M, Castañon A, Ndlela B,
Checchi M, Soldan K, Lopez-Bernal J, et al. The effects of the national HPV
vaccination programme in England, UK, on cervical cancer and grade 3 cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia incidence: a register-based observational study. The
Lancet 2021;398:2084–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02178-4.
[13] Shpendi S, Norman P, Gibson-Miller J,
Webster R. Identifying the key barriers, facilitators and factors associated
with cervical cancer screening attendance in young women: A systematic review.
Women’s Health 2025;21. https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057251324309.
[14] Li X, Zheng W. Enhancing cervical
cancer screening: the promise and future of self-sampling HPV testing.
Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine 2024;4.
https://doi.org/10.1136/gocm-2024-000059.
[15] Huntington S, Smith JS, Nuttall D,
Polokaova A, Smith PM, Hamlyn-Williams C, et al. Evidence from Europe on
implementation, participation and performance of self-collection for cervical
cancer screening. Future Oncology 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/14796694.2024.2409625.
[16] Viviano M, Tran PL, Kenfack B, Catarino
R, Akaaboune M, Temogne L, et al. Self-versus physician-collected samples for
the follow-up of human papillomavirus-positive women in sub-Saharan Africa.
Int J Womens Health 2018;10:187–94. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S154212.
[17] Colonetti T, Rodrigues Uggioni ML,
Meller dos Santos AL, Michels Uggioni N, Uggioni Elibio L, Balbinot EL, et al.
Self-sampling for HPV testing in cervical cancer screening: A scoping review.
European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
2024;296:20–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.02.032.
[18] Future optimisation of cervical
screening | Cancer Research UK.
Https://WwwCancerresearchukOrg/Health-Professional/Cancer-Screening/Cervical-Screening/Research-Optimisation
n.d.
[19] Topics 7 and 8: anatomy, physiology,
and taking cervical samples.
Https://WwwGovUk/Government/Publications/Cervical-Screening-Cervical-Sample-Taker-Training/Topics-7-and-8-Anatomy-Physiology-and-Taking-Cervical-Samples#taking-the-Sample
2025.
[20] Gillibrand S, Gibson H, Howells K,
Urwin S, Davies JC, Crosbie EJ, et al. Exploring the barriers to cervical
screening and perspectives on new self-sampling methods amongst under-served
groups. BMC Health Serv Res 2025;25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-12098-2.
[21] Daponte N, Valasoulis G, Michail G,
Magaliou I, Daponte AI, Garas A, et al. HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical
Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature.
Cancers (Basel) 2023;15. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15061669.
[22] Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The
behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing
behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science 2011;6.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.
[23] Davidoff F, Dixon-Woods M, Leviton L,
Michie S. Demystifying theory and its use in improvement. BMJ Qual Saf
2015;24:228–38. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003627.
[24] Nilsen P. Making sense of
implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science
2015;10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0.
[25] De Silva MJ, Breuer E, Lee L, Asher L,
Chowdhary N, Lund C, et al. Theory of Change: A theory-driven approach to
enhance the Medical Research Council’s framework for complex interventions.
Trials 2014;15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-267.
[26] Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L,
Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions:
Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ (Online) 2015;350.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258.
[27] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien
KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews
(PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73.
https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.
[28] Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC,
Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the
conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth 2020;18:2119–26.
https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167.
[29] Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z,
Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev
2016;5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.
[30] PRISMA 2020 flow diagram — PRISMA
statement. Https://WwwPrisma-StatementOrg/Prisma-2020-Flow-Diagram n.d.