Related Experiment Video For Cervical cancer screening
Updated: Sep 9, 2025

Collection, Isolation, and Flow Cytometric Analysis of Human Endocervical Samples
Published on: July 6, 2014
Impact of mode of offer of self-sampling to people overdue cervical screening on screening participation: a
Anita W W Lim1,2, Rebecca Landy1,3, Jane Rigney1,2
1Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Background:
Offering self-sampling to non-attenders increases cervical screening uptake, but the optimal approach for offering kits remains unclear.
Methods:
Randomised controlled trial offering self-sampling. 13 GP (general practitioner) practices were randomised (1:1) to flagging women ≥6-months overdue cervical screening so that they could be offered a self-sampling kit if they attended their GP for any reason (N = 6080 women), or no opportunistic offer (N = 6577 women). Additionally, never screened women and those overdue screening by 15- or 27-months were individually randomised (2:1:1) to usual care (no systematic offer), a letter inviting them to order a kit (letter), or being sent a self-sampling kit (kit). The study ran from April 2019 to March 2020. The primary outcome was returning a self-sampling kit, and the secondary outcome was any cervical screening. The International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) is 23940319.
Findings:
In opportunistic offer practices, 342 (5.6%) returned a self-sample compared with 1.9% (123/6577) in practices not randomised to opportunistic offering (adjusted risk difference 4.4% (95% CI: 2.8%-6.0%)). Half (234/449) of women offered self-sampling opportunistically returned a sample. Among 6400 women individually randomised to no systematic offer vs letter vs kit, 1.7% (54/3197), 4.8% (76/1587; difference relative to no systematic offer 3.1% 95% CI: 2.0-4.2%) and 12.3% (198/1616; difference relative to no systematic offer 10.5%, 95% CI: 8.9-12.2%), returned a self-sample (the primary outcome), respectively. These observed differences were maintained in the secondary outcome, any cervical screening. No adverse effects were reported.
Interpretation:
In-person offers were most effective, but only a small proportion of non-attenders received such an offer. Postal invitations without a kit were less effective. The secondary outcome suggests those screened by self-sampling would not have been screened otherwise and contribute to increased screening coverage.
Funding:
Cancer Research UKC8162/A16892 to PS (consumables), C8162/A29083 to PS (JR, AL), C8162/A25356 to PS (BN); National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS) ID: 36156 (AL); Intramural Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (RL).
Related Concept Videos
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
Random Sampling Method
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Convenience Sampling Method
Convenience sampling is a non-random method of sample selection; this method selects individuals that are easily accessible and may result in biased data. For example, a marketing...
Blinding

