RACOMIP is a population-based, randomized trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different interventions aimed at increasing participation in a well-run cervical cancer screening program in western Sweden. In this article, we report results from one intervention, offering non-attendees a high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) self-test. Comparison was made with standard screening invitation routine or standard routine plus a telephone call. Women (8,800), aged 30-62, were randomly selected among women without a registered Pap smear in the two latest screening rounds. These women were randomized 1:5:5 to one of three arms: 800 were offered a high-risk HPV self-test, 4,000 were randomized to a telephone call (reported previously) and 4,000 constituted a control group (standard screening invitation routine). Results were based on intention to treat analysis and cost-effectiveness was calculated as marginal cost per cancer case prevented. The endpoint was the frequency of testing. The total response rate in the self-testing arm was 24.5%, significantly higher than in the telephone arm (18%, RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.19-1.57) and the control group (10.6%, RR 2.33, 95% CI 2.00-2.71). All nine women who tested positive for high-risk HPV attended for a cervical smear and colposcopy. From the health-care sector perspective, the intervention will most likely lead to no additional cost. Offering a self-test for HPV as an alternative to Pap smears increases participation among long-term non-attendees. Offering various screening options can be a successful method for increasing participation in this group.

Non-participation is the foremost screening-related risk factor for cervical cancer. We studied the effectiveness and costeffectiveness of an intervention to increase participation in the context of a well-run screening program. Telephone contact with non-attendees, offering an appointment to take a smear, was compared with a control group in a population-based randomized trial in western Sweden. Of 8,800 randomly selected women aged 30-62, without a registered Pap smear in the two latest screening rounds, 4,000 were randomized to a telephone arm, another 800 were offered a high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) self-test by mail (not reported in this article) and 4,000 constituted a control group. Endpoints were frequency of testing, frequency of abnormal smears and further assessment of abnormal tests. Participation during the following 12 months was significantly higher in the telephone arm than in the control group, 718 (18.0%) versus 422 (10.6%) [RR: 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.52-1.90]. The number of detected abnormal smears was 39 and 19, respectively (RR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.19-3.55). The respective numbers of further assessed abnormalities were 34 and 18 (RR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.07-3.34). Twice as many high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN21) were detected and treated in the telephone arm: 14 and 7, respectively. Telephone contact with women who have abstained from cervical cancer screening for long time increases participation and leads to a significant increase in detection of atypical smears. Cost calculations indicate that this intervention is unlikely to be cost-generating and this strategy is feasible in the context of a screening program.Cervical cancer is considered to be a preventable disease. Screening by Papanicolaou (Pap) smear has markedly reduced incidence and mortality. [2][3][4] Vaccines to prevent infection with specific oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV), the main cause of cervical cancer, 5 are available but it will be long before effects on cancer will be measurable. 6,7 At least until then, screening programs will remain the key defense against this disease.8 A recent audit of the Swedish screening program, in which all cases of invasive cervical epithelial carcinoma during 3 years were evaluated, showed that

BackgroundCervical screening programs are highly protective for cervical cancer, but only for women attending screening procedure.ObjectiveIdentify socio-economic and demographic determinants for non-attendance in cervical screening.MethodsDesign: Population-based case-control study.Setting: Sweden.Population: Source population was all women eligible for screening. Based on complete screening records, two groups of women aged 30–60 were compared. The case group, non-attending women, (N = 314,302) had no smear registered for 6–8 years. The control group (N = 266,706) attended within 90 days of invitation.Main outcome measures: Risk of non-attendance by 9 groups of socioeconomic and demographic variables.Analysis: Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) and OR after adjustment for all variables in logistic regression models were calculated.ResultsWomen with low disposable family income (adjOR 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01–2.11), with low education (adjOR 1.77; CI 1.73–1.81) and not cohabiting (adjOR 1.47; CI 1.45–1.50) were more likely to not attend cervical screening. Other important factors for non-attendance were being outside the labour force and receiving welfare benefits. Swedish counties are responsible for running screening programs; adjusted OR for non-participation in counties ranged from OR 4.21 (CI 4.06–4.35) to OR 0.54 (CI 0.52–0.57), compared to the reference county. Being born outside Sweden was a risk factor for non-attendance in the unadjusted analysis but this disappeared in certain large groups after adjustment for socioeconomic factors.ConclusionCounty of residence and socio-economic factors were strongly associated with lower attendance in cervical screening, while being born in another country was of less importance. This indicates considerable potential for improvement of cervical screening attendance in several areas if best practice of routines is adopted.