Background: Cervical cancer screening participation is suboptimal in most settings. We assessed whether human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling may increase screening participation among long-term non-attenders in Norway. Methods: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial with participation as the primary outcome was initiated in the national cervical screening programme in March 2019. A random sample of 6000 women aged 35–69 years who had not attended screening for at least 10 years were randomised 1:1:1 to receive either (i) a reminder to attend regular screening (control), (ii) an offer to order a self-sampling kit (opt-in) for HPV testing or (iii) a self-sampling kit unsolicited (send-to-all) for HPV testing. Results: Total participation was 4.8%, 17.0% and 27.7% among control, opt-in and send-to-all (P < 0.0001; participation difference (%) send-to-all vs. control: 22.9 (95%CI: 20.7, 25.2); opt-in vs. control: 12.3 (95%CI: 10.3, 14.2); send-to-all vs. opt-in: 10.7 (95% CI: 8.0, 13.3)). High-risk HPV was detected in 11.5% of self-samples and 9.2% of clinician-collected samples (P = 0.40). Most women (92.5%) who returned a positive self-sample attended the clinic for triage testing. Of the 933 women screened, 33 (3.5%) had CIN2 + (1.1%, 3.7%, 3.8% among control, opt-in, and send-to-all, respectively), and 11 (1.2%) had cervical cancer (0%, 1.2%, 1.3% among control, opt-in, send-to-all, respectively). Conclusion: Opt-in and send-to-all self-sampling increased screening participation among long-term, higher-risk non-attenders. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03873376.

Objective The attendance rate for cervical cancer screening in Norway is currently suboptimal at 69%, and an in-depth understanding of postponement of cervical cancer screening from the perspective of non-attenders is lacking. This study aims to generate knowledge about how non-attenders for cervical cancer screening reflect on booking a screening appointment. Methods Using the Norwegian cervical cancer screening registry, we identified and recruited women who were non-attenders to screening. Nine focus group interviews were carried out, with 41 women participating in the interviews. Results Four main themes were generated, which provide a comprehensive understanding of how women who are overdue for screening reflect on their hesitancy to book a screening appointment: ‘It’s easy to forget about it’, ‘Women have to arrange their own appointment’, ‘It has to be a ‘must’’ and ‘It’s a humiliating situation’. Conclusion The degree to which women regard screening as important is affected by the nudging strategies employed in the screening programme and the facilitation of attendance provided by healthcare services. Dependence on one’s personal initiative to schedule a screening appointment and perception of a lack of responsibility on the part of healthcare services to attend screening may undermine informed and shared decision-making about screening attendance.

Nonattendance for cervical cancer screening is often understood in terms of a lack of ‘appropriate’ or ‘correct’ knowledge about the risks and prevention of the disease. Few studies have explored how lay persons—the users themselves—interpret and contextualise scientific knowledge about cervical cancer. In this study, we address the following research question: How is the epidemiology of cervical cancer and its prevention discussed among women who are late for cervical cancer screening in Norway? We completed nine focus group interviews (FGIs) with 41 women who had postponed cervical screening. The analyses were both inductive and explorative, aiming to unpack the complexity of lay understandings of cervical cancer. Interactive associations expressed in the FGIs reflected multiple understandings of aetiology and risk factors, screening, and interpretations of responsibility for acquiring cervical cancer. The term ‘candidacy’ was employed to provide an enhanced understanding of lay reasoning about the explanations and predictions of cervical cancer, as reflected in the FGIs. Both interpretations of biomedical concepts and cultural values were used to negotiate acceptable and nuanced interpretations of candidacy for cervical cancer. Uncertainties about risk factors for acquiring cervical cancer was an important aspect of such negotiations. The study’s findings provide an in-depth understanding of the contexts in which screening may be rendered less relevant or significant for maintaining health. Lay epidemiology should not be considered inappropriate knowledge but rather as a productive component when understanding health behaviours, such as screening attendance.

Introduction: A pregnancy can be evaluated as high‐risk for the woman and/or the fetus based on medical history and on previous or ongoing pregnancy characteristics. Monitoring high‐risk pregnancies is crucial for early detection of alarming features, enabling timely intervention to ensure optimal maternal and fetal health outcomes. Home‐based telemonitoring (HBTM) is a marginally exploited opportunity in antenatal care. The aim of this study was to illuminate healthcare providers' and users' expectations and views about HBTM of maternal and fetal health in high‐risk pregnancies before implementation.Material and methods: To address diverse perspectives regarding HBTM of high‐risk pregnancies, four different groups of experienced healthcare providers or users were interviewed (n = 21). Focus group interviews were conducted separately with midwives, obstetricians, and women who had previously experienced stillbirth. Six individual interviews were conducted with hospitalized women with ongoing high‐risk pregnancies, representing potential candidates for HBTM. None of the participants had any previous experience with HBTM of pregnancies. The study is embedded in a social constructivist research paradigm. Interviews were analyzed using a thematic approach.Results: The participants acknowledged the benefits and potentials of more active roles for both care recipients and providers in HBTM. Concerns were clearly addressed and articulated in the following themes: eligibility and ability of women, availability of midwives and obstetricians, empowerment and patient safety, and shared responsibility. All groups problematized issues crucial to maintaining a sense of safety for care recipients, and healthcare providers also addressed issues related to maintaining a sense of safety also for the care providers. Conditions for HBTM were understood in terms of optimal personalized training, individual assessment of eligibility, and empowerment of an active patient role. These conditions were linked to the importance of competent and experienced midwives and obstetricians operating the monitoring, as well as the availability and continuity of care provision. Maintenance of safety in HBTM in high‐risk pregnancies was crucial, particularly so in situations involving emerging acute health issues.Conclusions: HBTM requires new, proactive roles among midwives, obstetricians, and monitored women, introducing a fine‐tuned balance between personalized and standardized care to provide safe, optimal monitoring of high‐risk pregnancies.