Device Preference Predictors

Uses

How it works

Highlighted claims

• Prior self-sampling experience, screening history, and subcohort membership were not significant predictors of device preference. — Women’s preference for HPV self-sampling devices: a programme-embedded, large-scale paired comparative study within the cervical cancer screening programme in the Capital Region of Denmark
• Sampling order was the sole significant predictor of device preference in comparisons involving Evalyn, consistent with a primacy bias. — Women’s preference for HPV self-sampling devices: a programme-embedded, large-scale paired comparative study within the cervical cancer screening programme in the Capital Region of Denmark
• Device preferences are driven primarily by immediate device characteristics rather than prior experience with self-sampling or screening attendance history. — Women’s preference for HPV self-sampling devices: a programme-embedded, large-scale paired comparative study within the cervical cancer screening programme in the Capital Region of Denmark
• Age was the only significant predictor of preference in the FLOQSwab vs SensiGrip comparison, with older women marginally more likely to prefer FLOQSwab, though the effect was very small. — Women’s preference for HPV self-sampling devices: a programme-embedded, large-scale paired comparative study within the cervical cancer screening programme in the Capital Region of Denmark
• Since prior experience, subcohort, and screening history did not influence preference, programme-level device replacement need not be tailored by population subgroup. — Women’s preference for HPV self-sampling devices: a programme-embedded, large-scale paired comparative study within the cervical cancer screening programme in the Capital Region of Denmark