Post

New research · Family Medicine
Cancer causes & control : CCC · 23h
Cross-sectionalCancer causes & control : CCC · 2026

Access to cervical screening in Australian general practices: a cross-sectional study using a 'secret shopper' approach.

Lucy Boyd, Claire Nightingale, Javiera Martinez-Gutierrez … Julia Brotherton
Read paper
Family MedicineCross-sectional

Nearly a quarter of general practices could not offer cervical screening appointments for new patients.

Access to cervical screening in Australian general practices: a cross-sectional study using a 'secret shopper' approach.

Lucy Boyd et al. · Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026
Background

Cervical screening in Australia is currently accessed through a healthcare provider, typically a general practitioner in primary care.

Purpose

We aimed to assess the real-world availability of and access to cervical screening services, including self-collection.

Methods

Cross-sectional study was conducted using a secret shopper methodology with a standardized telephone script that emulated real-life calls.

n = 310 general practices
Results
this is the proportion of GP clinics unable to provide cervical screening for new patients
n = 310 general practices
More results

Among practices able to provide an appointment, 217 (89%) said self-collection was available.

By jurisdiction, the proportion of practices reporting availability of cervical screening ranged from 72 to 83% but did not significantly differ.

More regional clinics (94%) offered self-collection compared to metropolitan clinics (85%)(P = ·017).

More results

Practices located in the most disadvantaged socioeconomic quintile had a significantly higher proportion offering self-collection (95%) compared to those located in the most advantaged quintile (79%)(P = ·043).

“
Conclusion · 1 of 3

Our study highlighted that access to cervical screening may be constrained by limited appointments for new patients, out-of-pocket costs, and other factors.

Conclusion · 2 of 3

These barriers may disproportionately affect individuals facing structural and financial disadvantage. We found significant variability in availability of self-collection by location.

Conclusion · 3 of 3

Exploring flexible models, including mail-out, pharmacy supported, or community-led models, may improve accessibility and reduce burden on general practices.

Read paper
0 comments

No comments yet. Be the first.

Related papers

LatestFoundational
Meta-analysis
56%
56% of the reviewed nutrition interventions in primary care were deemed cost-effective.
Cross-sectional
aOR 0.34
Prior antibiotic resistance training was linked to lower overall antibiotic prescribing
Guideline
23
total recommendations in the new guideline for managing long-term kidney disease
Cohort Study
8.3%
high telehealth use led to a larger rise in consistent care
Study
61 indicators
General practitioners agreed on 61 measures to guide care for patients with multiple health conditions
Observational
86.5%
most patients had fluid in their lungs, not yet causing symptoms
Guideline
21 evidence-based recommendations
pieces of advice for managing asthma, supported by research
AI / Informatics
adjusted odds ratio 0.77
AI assistance did not significantly lower the odds of treatment failure