Analysis of three strategies to increase screening coverage for cervical cancer in the general population of women aged 60 to 70 years: the CRICERVA study

Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane review published in Issue 5, 2011. Worldwide, cervical cancer is the fourth commonest cancer affecting women. High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is causative in 99.7% of cases. Other risk factors include smoking, multiple sexual partners, the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases and immunosuppression. Primary prevention strategies for cervical cancer focus on reducing HPV infection via vaccination and data suggest that this has the potential to prevent nearly 90% of cases in those vaccinated prior to HPV exposure. However, not all countries can afford vaccination programmes and, worryingly, uptake in many countries has been extremely poor. Secondary prevention, through screening programmes, will remain critical to reducing cervical cancer, especially in unvaccinated women or those vaccinated later in adolescence. This includes screening for the detection of pre-cancerous cells, as well as high-risk HPV. In the UK, since the introduction of the Cervical Screening Programme in 1988, the associated mortality rate from cervical cancer has fallen. However, worldwide, there is great variation between countries in both coverage and uptake of screening. In some countries, national screening programmes are available whereas in others, screening is provided on an opportunistic basis. Additionally, there are differences within countries in uptake dependent on ethnic origin, age, education and socioeconomic status. Thus, understanding and incorporating these factors in screening programmes can increase the uptake of screening. This, together with vaccination, can lead to cervical cancer becoming a rare disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at women, to increase the uptake, including informed uptake, of cervical screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 6, 2020. MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS databases up to June 2020. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis using standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

Comprehensive literature searches identified 2597 records; of these, 70 met our inclusion criteria, of which 69 trials (257,899 participants) were entered into a meta-analysis. The studies assessed the effectiveness of invitational and educational interventions, lay health worker involvement, counselling and risk factor assessment. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity between trials limited statistical pooling of data. Overall, there was moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that invitations appear to be an effective method of increasing uptake compared to control (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.96; 141,391 participants; 24 studies). Additional analyses, ranging from low to moderate-certainty evidence, suggested that invitations that were personalised, i.e. personal invitation, GP invitation letter or letter with a fixed appointment, appeared to be more successful. More specifically, there was very low-certainty evidence to support the use of GP invitation letters as compared to other authority sources' invitation letters within two RCTs, one RCT assessing 86 participants (RR 1.69 95% CI 0.75 to 3.82) and another, showing a modest benefit, included over 4000 participants (RR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.05 to 1.21). Low-certainty evidence favoured personalised invitations (telephone call, face-to-face or targeted letters) as compared to standard invitation letters (RR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.11 to 1.21; 27,663 participants; 5 studies). There was moderate-certainty evidence to support a letter with a fixed appointment to attend, as compared to a letter with an open invitation to make an appointment (RR 1.61, 95 % CI 1.48 to 1.75; 5742 participants; 5 studies). Low-certainty evidence supported the use of educational materials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.54; 63,415 participants; 13 studies) and lay health worker involvement (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.65; 4330 participants; 11 studies). Other less widely reported interventions included counselling, risk factor assessment, access to a health promotion nurse, photo comic book, intensive recruitment and message framing. It was difficult to deduce any meaningful conclusions from these interventions due to sparse data and low-certainty evidence. However, having access to a health promotion nurse and attempts at intensive recruitment may have increased uptake. One trial reported an economic outcome and randomised 3124 participants within a national screening programme to either receive the standard screening invitation, which would incur a fee, or an invitation offering screening free of charge. No difference in the uptake at 90 days was found (574/1562 intervention versus 612/1562 control, (RR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.03). The use of HPV self-testing as an alternative to conventional screening may also be effective at increasing uptake and this will be covered in a subsequent review. Secondary outcomes, including cost data, were incompletely documented. The majority of cluster-RCTs did not account for clustering or adequately report the number of clusters in the trial in order to estimate the design effect, so we did not selectively adjust the trials. It is unlikely that reporting of these trials would impact the overall conclusions and robustness of the results. Of the meta-analyses that could be performed, there was considerable statistical heterogeneity, and this should be borne in mind when interpreting these findings. Given this and the low to moderate evidence, further research may change these findings. The risk of bias in the majority of trials was unclear, and a number of trials suffered from methodological problems and inadequate reporting. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of an unclear or high risk of bias with regards to allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data and other biases.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence to support the use of invitation letters to increase the uptake of cervical screening. Low-certainty evidence showed lay health worker involvement amongst ethnic minority populations may increase screening coverage, and there was also support for educational interventions, but it is unclear what format is most effective. The majority of the studies were from developed countries and so the relevance of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is unclear. Overall, the low-certainty evidence that was identified makes it difficult to infer as to which interventions were best, with exception of invitational interventions, where there appeared to be more reliable evidence.

Text Messaging and Opt-out Mailed Outreach in Colorectal Cancer Screening: a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Routine screening reduces colorectal cancer mortality, but screening rates fall below national targets and are particularly low in underserved populations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of a single text message outreach to serial text messaging and mailed fecal home test kits on colorectal cancer screening rates.

DESIGN

A two-armed randomized clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS

An urban community health center in Philadelphia. Adults aged 50-74 who were due for colorectal cancer screening had at least one visit to the practice in the previously year, and had a cell phone number recorded.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized (1:1 ratio). Individuals in the control arm were sent a simple text message reminder as per usual practice. Those in the intervention arm were sent a pre-alert text message offering the options to opt-out of receiving a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit, followed by up to three behaviorally informed text message reminders.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was participation in colorectal cancer screening at 12 weeks. The secondary outcome was the FIT kit return rate at 12 weeks.

KEY RESULTS

Four hundred forty participants were included. The mean age was 57.4 years (SD ± 6.1). 63.4% were women, 87.7% were Black, 19.1% were uninsured, and 49.6% were Medicaid beneficiaries. At 12 weeks, there was an absolute 17.3 percentage point increase in colorectal cancer screening in the intervention arm (19.6%), compared to the control arm (2.3%, p < 0.001). There was an absolute 17.7 percentage point increase in FIT kit return in the intervention arm (19.1%) compared to the control arm (1.4%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Serial text messaging with opt-out mailed FIT kit outreach can substantially improve colorectal cancer screening rates in an underserved population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03479645 ).

Long-term protection of HPV test in women at risk of cervical cancer

Objective

To evaluate the 9-year incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and cumulative adherence to perform a next test in a cohort of women aged 40+ years with no cervical screening cytology within a window of 5 years (underscreened women), after baseline cervical cytology and HPV tests.

Methods

In Catalonia, Spain, co-testing with cytology and HPV test has been recommended in the Public Health system since 2006 for underscreened women. In 2007, 1,594 women with underscreened criteria were identified and followed through medical records form Pathological Department. 9-year cumulative incidence of histologically confirmed CIN2+ and cumulative adherence to perform a next test were estimated using Kaplan-Meier statistics.

Results

Follow-up was available for 1,009 women (63.3%) resulting in 23 women with. CIN2+ (2.3%). Of them, 4 women (17%) had both tests negative at baseline (3CIN2 and 1CIN3) with cumulative incidence of CIN2+ of 0.4% (95% CI: 0.1–1.4) at 5-years and 1.3% (95% CI: 0.4–3.7) at 9-years. During the first year, the prevalence among women with both tests positive was 27.0% (95% CI: 13.0–50.6) for CIN2+. Lost to follow-up was higher among women with both tests negative compared to those with both positive tests (38.7% vs 4.2%, p-value <0.001). 40.5% of the women HPV-/cyto- had a re-screening test during the 4 years following the baseline, increasing until 53.5% during the 6 years of follow-up.

Conclusions

HPV detection shows a high longitudinal predictive value at 9-year to identify women at risk to develop CIN2+. The data validate a safe extension of the 3-year screening intervals (current screening interval) to 5-year intervals in underscreened women that had negative HPV result at baseline. It is necessary to establish mechanisms to ensure screening participation and adequate follow-up for these women.

Uptake of Cervical Cancer Screening in Ethiopia by Self-Sampling HPV DNA Compared to Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid: A Cluster Randomized Trial

In Ethiopia, the standard method of cervical cancer screening is using Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (VIA). Self-collection-based human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is assumed to improve the uptake of screening, especially for hard to reach populations. We investigated whether HPV DNA testing with the self-collection of cervical samples would be associated with increased uptake and adherence to procedures at the population level compared with VIA within defined rural population in Ethiopia. A total of 22 clusters (comprising 2,356 women ages 30-49 years) were randomized in two arms. Following the community mobilization, women of the clusters were invited to go either to the local health post for a self-collection-based HPV DNA testing (arm A) or Butajira Hospital for VIA screening (arm B). In the HPV arm, of the 1,213 sensitized women, 1,020 (84.1%) accessed the health post for self-sampling compared with the VIA arm, where 575 of 1,143 (50.5%) visited the hospital for VIA (P < 0.0001). Of those women who attended the VIA and HPV arms, 40% and 65.4% adhered to all procedures expected after screening, respectively. Out of women positive for high risk HPV, 122 (85%) attended VIA as a follow-up test. The trial demonstrated significantly higher levels of population-based uptake and adherence for self-collection HPV testing. Women were more receptive for VIA after their HPV testing result was positive. Self-collection HPV testing can be done at the local health facility and may significantly improve the uptake of cervical cancer screening in Ethiopia.

Factors associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) test acceptability in primary screening for cervical cancer: A mixed methods research synthesis

Primary screening for cervical cancer is transitioning from the longstanding Pap smear towards implementation of an HPV-DNA test, which is more sensitive than Pap cytology in detecting high-risk lesions and offers greater protection against invasive cervical carcinomas. Based on these results, many countries are recommending and implementing HPV testing-based screening programs. Understanding what factors (e.g., knowledge, attitudes) will impact on HPV test acceptability by women is crucial for ensuring adequate public health practices to optimize cervical screening uptake. We used mixed methods research synthesis to provide a categorization of the relevant factors related to HPV primary screening for cervical cancer and describe their influence on women's acceptability of HPV testing. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Health and Web of Science for journal articles between January 1, 1980 and October 31, 2017 and retained 22 empirical articles. Our results show that while most factors associated with HPV test acceptability are included in the Health Belief Model and/or Theory of Planned Behavior (e.g., attitudes, knowledge), other important factors are not encompassed by these theoretical frameworks (e.g., health behaviors, negative emotional reactions related to HPV testing). The direction of influence of psychosocial factors on HPV test acceptability was synthesized based on 14 quantitative studies as: facilitators (e.g., high perceived HPV test benefits), barriers (e.g., negative attitudes towards increased screening intervals), contradictory evidence (e.g., sexual history) and no impact (e.g., high perceived severity of HPV infection). Further population-based studies are needed to confirm the impact of these factors on HPV-based screening acceptability.

Prediction of cervical cancer incidence in England, UK, up to 2040, under four scenarios: a modelling study

BACKGROUND

In the next 25 years, the epidemiology of cervical cancer in England, UK, will change: human papillomavirus (HPV) screening will be the primary test for cervical cancer. Additionally, the proportion of women screened regularly is decreasing and women who received the HPV vaccine are due to attend screening for the first time. Therefore, we aimed to estimate how vaccination against HPV, changes to the screening test, and falling screening coverage will affect cervical cancer incidence in England up to 2040.

METHODS

We did a data modelling study that combined results from population modelling of incidence trends, observable data from the individual level with use of a generalised linear model, and microsimulation of unobservable disease states. We estimated age-specific absolute risks of cervical cancer in the absence of screening (derived from individual level data). We used an age period cohort model to estimate birth cohort effects. We multiplied the absolute risks by the age cohort effects to provide absolute risks of cervical cancer for unscreened women in different birth cohorts. We obtained relative risks (RRs) of cervical cancer by screening history (never screened, regularly screened, or lapsed attender) using data from a population-based case-control study for unvaccinated women, and using a microsimulation model for vaccinated women. RRs of primary HPV screening were relative to cytology. We used the proportion of women in each 5-year age group (25-29 years to 75-79 years) and 5-year period (2016-20 to 2036-40) who have a combination of screening and vaccination history, and weighted to estimate the population incidence. The primary outcome was the number of cases and rates per 100 000 women under four scenarios: no changes to current screening coverage or vaccine uptake and HPV primary testing from 2019 (status quo), changing the year in which HPV primary testing is introduced, introduction of the nine-valent vaccine, and changes to cervical screening coverage.

FINDINGS

The status quo scenario estimated that the peak age of cancer diagnosis will shift from the ages of 25-29 years in 2011-15 to 55-59 years in 2036-40. Unvaccinated women born between 1975 and 1990 were predicted to have a relatively high risk of cervical cancer throughout their lives. Introduction of primary HPV screening from 2019 could reduce age-standardised rates of cervical cancer at ages 25-64 years by 19%, from 15·1 in 2016 to 12·2 per 100 000 women as soon as 2028. Vaccination against HPV types 16 and 18 (HPV 16/18) could see cervical cancer rates in women aged 25-29 years decrease by 55% (from 20·9 in 2011-15 to 9·5 per 100 000 women by 2036-40), and introduction of nine-valent vaccination from 2019 compared with continuing vaccination against HPV 16/18 will reduce rates by a further 36% (from 9·5 to 6·1 per 100 000 women) by 2036-40. Women born before 1991 will not benefit directly from vaccination; therefore, despite vaccination and primary HPV screening with current screening coverage, European age-standardised rates of cervical cancer at ages 25-79 years will decrease by only 10% (from 12·8 in 2011-15 to 11·5 per 100 000 women in 2036-40). If screening coverage fell to 50%, European age-standardised rates could increase by 27% (from 12·8 to 16·3 per 100 000 by 2036-40).

INTERPRETATION

Going forward, focus should be placed on scenarios that offer less intensive screening for vaccinated women and more on increasing coverage and incorporation of new technologies to enhance current cervical screening among unvaccinated women.

FUNDING

Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust and Cancer Research UK.

Effect of cervical cancer education and provider recommendation for screening on screening rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Although cervical cancer is largely preventable through screening, detection and treatment of precancerous abnormalities, it remains one of the top causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality globally.

Objectives

The objective of this systematic review is to understand the evidence of the effect of cervical cancer education compared to control conditions on cervical cancer screening rates in eligible women population at risk of cervical cancer. We also sought to understand the effect of provider recommendations for screening to eligible women on cervical cancer screening (CCS) rates compared to control conditions in eligible women population at risk of cervical cancer.

Methods

We used the PICO (Problem or Population, Interventions, Comparison and Outcome) framework as described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook to develop our search strategy. The details of our search strategy has been described in our systematic review protocol published in the International Prospective Register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). The protocol registration number is CRD42016045605 available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?src=trip&ID=CRD42016045605. The search string was used in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Cochrane CENTRAL register of controlled trials to retrieve study reports that were screened for inclusion in this review. Our data synthesis and reporting was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). We did a qualitative synthesis of evidence and, where appropriate, individual study effects were pooled in meta-analyses using RevMan 5.3 Review Manager. The Higgins I² was used to assess for heterogeneity in studies pooled together for overall summary effects. We did assessment of risk of bias of individual studies included and assessed risk of publication bias across studies pooled together in meta-analysis by Funnel plot.

Results

Out of 3072 study reports screened, 28 articles were found to be eligible for inclusion in qualitative synthesis (5 of which were included in meta-analysis of educational interventions and 8 combined in meta-analysis of HPV self-sampling interventions), while 45 were excluded for various reasons. The use of theory-based educational interventions significantly increased CCS rates by more than double (OR, 2.46, 95% CI: 1.88, 3.21). Additionally, offering women the option of self-sampling for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing increased CCS rates by nearly 2-fold (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.32, 2.22). We also found that invitation letters alone (or with a follow up phone contact), making an appointment, and sending reminders to patients who are due or overdue for screening had a significant effect on improving participation and CCS rates in populations at risk.

Conclusion

Our findings supports the implementation of theory-based cervical cancer educational interventions to increase women’s participation in cervical cancer screening programs, particularly when targeting communities with low literacy levels. Additionally, cervical cancer screening programs should consider the option of offering women the opportunity for self-sample collection particularly when such women have not responded to previous screening invitation or reminder letters for Pap smear collection as a method of screening.

Increasing Cervical Cancer Screening Coverage: A Randomised, Community-Based Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Opportunistic cervical cancer screening can lead to suboptimal screening coverage. Coverage could be increased after a personalised invitation to the target population. We present a community randomized intervention study with three strategies aiming to increase screening coverage.

METHODS

The CRICERVA study is a community-based clinical trial to improve coverage of population-based screening in the Cerdanyola SAP area in Barcelona.A total of 32,858 women residing in the study area, aged 30 to 70 years were evaluated. A total of 15,965 women were identified as having no registration of a cervical cytology in the last 3.5 years within the Public Health data base system. Eligible women were assigned to one of four community randomized intervention groups (IGs): (1) (IG1 N = 4197) personalised invitation letter, (2) (IG2 N = 3601) personalised invitation letter + informative leaflet, (3) (IG3 N = 6088) personalised invitation letter + informative leaflet + personalised phone call and (4) (Control N = 2079) based on spontaneous demand of cervical cancer screening as officially recommended. To evaluate screening coverage, we used heterogeneity tests to compare impact of the interventions and mixed logistic regression models to assess the age effect. We refer a "rescue" visit as the screening visit resulting from the study invitation.

RESULTS

Among the 13,886 women in the IGs, 2,862 were evaluated as having an adequate screening history after the initial contact; 4,263 were lost to follow-up and 5,341 were identified as having insufficient screening and thus being eligible for a rescue visit. All intervention strategies significantly increased participation to screening compared to the control group. Coverage after the intervention reached 84.1% while the control group reached 64.8%. The final impact of our study was an increase of 20% in the three IGs and of 9% in the control group (p<0.001). Within the intervention arms, age was an important determinant of rescue visits showing a statistical interaction with the coverage attained in the IGs. Within the intervention groups, final screening coverage was significantly higher in IG3 (84.4%) (p<0.001). However, the differences were more substantial in the age groups 50-59 and those 60+. The highest impact of the IG3 intervention was observed among women 60+ y.o with 32.0% of them being rescued for screening. The lowest impact of the interventions was in younger women.

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirms that using individual contact methods and assigning a fixed screening date notably increases participation in screening. The response to the invitation is strongly dependent on age.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01373723.

Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services

Objective

Screening participation is spread differently across populations, according to factors such as ethnicity or socioeconomic status. We here review the current evidence on effects of interventions to improve cancer screening participation, focussing in particular on effects in underserved populations.

Methods

We selected studies to review based on their characteristics: focussing on population screening programmes, showing a quantitative estimate of the effect of the intervention, and published since 1990. To determine eligibility for our purposes, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search and expanded this until the search yielded eligible papers on title review which were less than 1% of the total. We classified the eligible studies by intervention type and by the cancer for which they screened, while looking to identify effects in any inequality dimension.

Results

The 68 papers included in our review reported on 71 intervention studies. Of the interventions, 58 had significant positive effects on increasing participation, with increase rates of the order of 2%–20% (in absolute terms).

Conclusions

Across different countries and health systems, a number of interventions were found more consistently to improve participation in cancer screening, including in underserved populations: pre-screening reminders, general practitioner endorsement, more personalized reminders for non-participants, and more acceptable screening tests in bowel and cervical screening.

Effectiveness of three interventions in improving adherence to cervical cancer screening

In countries where cervical cancer screening programmes are conducted on an opportunistic basis, an active search for women at risk should be made to increase coverage. The objective of our study was to assess the effectiveness of three primary care interventions consisting of providing written, telephone and face-to-face information to increase screening participation among women over the age of 25 years. A randomized experimental study with only one post-test control group was conducted on women aged 25-70 years. A total of 1676 women were randomly distributed into four groups and the following interventions were implemented: written briefing; telephone briefing; an invitation to attend a group meeting and no briefing (control group). The women were evaluated 2 years after the intervention. The outcome variable was participation or nonparticipation in cervical cancer screening. It proved possible to interview a total of 1122 women. Among the groups, homogeneity was tested in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and health-related variables. Women who had undergone cytological testing in the 2 years preceding evaluation had a lower mean age (P<0.001) than women who had not done so (45.5±11.0 vs. 48.8±13.0 years). The proportion of women who had participated in screening was as follows: 35.3% in the written information group [95% confidence interval (CI) 29.8-40.9]; 38.4% in the telephone information group (95% CI 32.5-44.2); 29.3% in the face-to-face information group (95% CI 22.8-35.7) and 26.1% in the control group (95% CI 21.2-30.9), with this difference proving statistically significant (P=0.005). Logistic regression showed that only the interventions based on written or telephone briefing were effective vis-à-vis the control group. In conclusion, both written and telephone information can serve to improve women's participation in opportunistic cervical cancer screening. Current preventive strategies could be optimized by means of simple interventions within the scope of health professionals.

Underscreened Women Remain Overrepresented in the Pool of Cervical Cancer Cases in Spain: A Need to Rethink the Screening Interventions

OBJECTIVE

Audit of women with invasive cervical cancer (CC) is critical for quality control within screening activities. We analysed the screening history in the 10 years preceding the study entry in women with and without CC during 2000-2011.

METHODS

323 women with CC from six pathology departments in Catalonia (Spain) and 23,782 women with negative cytology were compared. Age, previous history of cytologies, and histological type and FIGO stage were collected from the pathology registries. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI95%).

RESULTS

History of cytology was registered in 26.2% of CC cases and in 78% of the control women (P < 0.0001) and its frequency decreased with increasing age. Compared to women with squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma cases were significantly more likely to have a cytology within the 3-year interval preceding cancer diagnosis (OR = 2.6 CI 95%: 1.2-5.6) and to have normal cytology results in previous screenings (OR = 2.4 CI 95%: 1.2-4.5). FIGO II-IV cases were more common among older women (older than 60 years).

CONCLUSIONS

Absence of prior screening history was extremely common among CC cases compared to controls. Organized actions to reduce underscreened women and use of highly sensitive HPV-based tests could be important to reduce CC burden.

Screening of cervical cancer in Catalonia 2006-2012

The early detection of intraepithelial lesions of the cervix, through the periodic examination of cervical cells, has been fundamental for the prevention of invasive cervical cancer and its related mortality. In this report, we summarise the cervical cancer screening activities carried out in Catalonia, Spain, within the National Health System during 2008-2011. The study population covers over two million women resident in the area. The evaluation includes 758,690 cervical cytologies performed on a total of 595,868 women. The three-year coverage of cervical cytology among women aged between 25 and 65 years was 40.8%. About 50% of first screened women with negative results had not returned to the second screening round. The introduction of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA (HPV) detection, as a primary screening cotest with cytology among women over age 40 with a poor screening history, significantly improved the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), being far superior to cytology alone. Cotesting did not improve the detection of CIN2+. The use of the HPV test for the triage of atypical squamous cell undetermined significance (ASC-US) improved the selection of women at high risk of CIN2+. Sampling (both cytology and HPV test) was largely performed by midwives (66.7%), followed by obstetricians (23.8%) and nurses (7%). Over half of the centres (54.8%) had full use of online medical records. During the study period, educational activities for professionals and for women were carried out periodically. The organisation of screening as a population activity in which women are actively called to the screening visit and the introduction of HPV testing as a primary screening tool are strongly recommended to ensure the maximum population impact in the reduction of the cervical cancer burden.