Sexual Health

What young women (aged 24–29 years) in Australia think about self-collection for cervical screening: a brief report

Background In mid-2022 Australia’s National Cervical Screening Program made self-collection of a vaginal sample an option for screening for young women or people with a cervix aged 25 to 29 years for the first time. This study explored what young women thought about, and wanted to know about, self-collection, and what their future screening preferences are. Methods Young women (n = 21), aged 24–29 years, were recruited through social media. Semi-structured interviews explored screening history, screening preferences and thoughts about self-collection. Data were analysed using an a priori coding framework informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Results Young women valued the addition of self-collection to the national cervical screening program, believing it to be less invasive and more convenient. However, they also valued the choice to opt for a clinician-collected specimen if preferred. Conclusions Self-collection is a valuable addition to the National Cervical Screening Program. This study suggests that continued efforts are needed to raise awareness of its availability, and improve understanding about its accuracy, the ease of collection, that you still need to engage with a primary healthcare service to access it and that you can still opt for a clinician-collected test.

Trends in high-risk human papillomavirus infection and cervical cytology of women in Karamay City, 2012–2021

Background To describe the changes in cervical lesions prevalence and high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infections from 2012 to 2021, which have never been reported before, to provide direction for the effective implementation of cervical cancer prevention measures. Methods This retrospective study included women aged >25 years who received either organised or opportunistic cervical HR-HPV screening from January 2012 to December 2021 in Karamay Central Hospital, Karamay, China. The patients were split into four groups according to age 25–35, 36–45, 46–55 and >55 years, respectively. The Joinpoint Regression Program was used to analyse the trends of HR-HPV infection and the detection of cervical lesions. Results Data from 85,429 women revealed a decline in HR-HPV infection rates across all age groups from 2012 to 2021. Although HR-HPV infection rates decreased, cervical lesion detection rates increased, although the proportion of cervical cancer in these lesions declined, likely due to enhanced awareness and HPV vaccination in Karamay. From 2012 to 2021, the prevalence of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions was 9.70%, and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions was 5.85%. HR-HPV infections were highest in the ≥55 years age group, with HPV52 (20.96%) being the most prevalent type. Conclusions In the past 10 years, the prevalence of HR-HPV infection has shown a decreasing trend, whereas the detection prevalence of cervical lesions has shown an upward trend among women in Karamay City. Importantly, particular emphasis should be placed on cervical cancer screening in women aged >55 years.

How is cervical cancer screening discussed with clients at a sexual health clinic in Melbourne, Australia?

We conducted a survey among 40 clinicians working at the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre in November 2021. We asked clinicians how they discussed cervical screening with their clients. All clinicians used the term ‘Cervical Screening Test (CST)’ when discussing cervical cancer screening with clients. However, 19 clinicians (48%) also used the term ‘Pap smear’, particularly among older women as they were more familiar with Pap smear than CST. Twenty-five (63%) clinicians believed that clients did not understand the difference between Pap smears and CST. Further education is required to improve the understanding between the terminologies.

Cancer screening guidelines for transgender individuals: a narrative review of current recommendations and practice gaps

This narrative review aimed to synthesize current cancer screening recommendations for transgender individuals, critically assess their content, identify inconsistencies, and highlight key evidence gaps to inform future clinical practice and policy. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Web of Science through 9 May 2025 for screening guidelines relevant to transgender individuals. We included documents from national or international bodies, academic institutions or recognized expert panels. Guidelines focused on breast, cervical, prostate, endometrial, ovarian and anal cancer. Data were extracted into a structured matrix by cancer type, screening approach and relevance to transgender populations. Of 79 sources screened, 14 met inclusion criteria. Most were transgender-specific. Recommendations varied substantially across cancer types. Breast cancer screening showed the widest divergence, with differing thresholds based on age, gender-affirming hormone therapy duration and risk stratification. For prostate, endometrial, ovarian and anal cancers, dedicated guidance was sparse or absent, often relying on extrapolation from cisgender populations. Key gaps included inconsistent terminology, lack of integration of gender-affirming hormone therapy and surgical history, and limited rationale for screening intervals and age cutoffs. Future efforts should prioritize inclusive data collection, integration of gender identity into cancer surveillance systems and development of evidence-informed, population-specific screening protocols to advance equitable care.

Are women-who-have-sex-with-women an ‘at-risk’ group for cervical cancer? An exploratory study of women in Aotearoa New Zealand

Background International research consistently indicates that women-who-have-sex-with-women (WSW) are less likely to engage in cervical screening than heterosexual women. In the main, studies have explored rates of engagement and highlighted some reasons for non-engagement. This study extends on this work by exploring perceptions among sexual minority women (WSW) for lower rates of engagement among WSW more generally and is the first study on this topic undertaken in Aotearoa New Zealand. Methods A sample of 177 self-identified WSW domiciled in New Zealand completed an online survey about their engagement in cervical screening, reasons for engaging (or not) in cervical screening, and perceptions of why SMW might be less likely to engage in cervical screening. Results Fewer than half of participants had engaged in cervical screening every 3 years as recommended, with women who had only ever had sex with other women being significantly less likely to have engaged in screening. A lack of clear information about risk relative to sexual history, heteronormativity, and the invasive nature of screening were the dominant reasons for lower engagement among WSW. Conclusions A legacy of misinformation, and endemic heteronormativity in public health messaging around cervical screening is a significant barrier to engagement in screening for WSW. To increase engagement in screening among WSW, public health information needs to specifically address the needs of WSW.