Search

BACKGROUND: The ongoing global crisis of Higher Education (HE) institutions during the post-COVID-19 pandemic period has increased the likelihood of enduring psychological stressors for staff. This study aimed to identify factors associated with job insecurity, burnout, psychological distress and coping amongst staff working at HE institutions globally. METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional study was conducted in 2023 with staff at HE institutions across 16 countries. Job insecurity was measured using the Job Insecurity Scale (JIS), burnout using the Perceived Burnout measure question, psychological distress using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), and coping using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Multivariable logistic regression with a stepwise variable selection method was used to identify associations. RESULTS: A total of 2,353 staff participated; the mean age (± SD) was 43(± 10) years and 61% were females. Most staff (85%) did not feel job insecurity, one-third (29%) perceived burnout in their jobs, more than two-thirds (73%) experienced moderate to very high levels of psychological distress, and more than half (58%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping. Perceived job insecurity was associated with staff working part-time [Adjusted Odds Ratio 1.53 (95% Confidence Intervals 1.15-2.02)], having an academic appointment [2.45 (1.78-3.27)], having multiple co-morbidities [1.86 (1.41-2.48)], perceived burnout [1.99 (1.54-2.56)] and moderate to very high level of psychological distress [1.68 (1.18-2.39)]. Perceived burnout was associated with being female [1.35 (1.12-1.63)], having multiple co-morbidities [1.53 (1.20-1.97)], perceived job insecurity [1.99 (1.55-2.57)], and moderate to very high levels of psychological distress [3.23 (2.42-4.30)]. Staff with multiple co-morbidities [1.46 (1.11-1.92)], mental health issues [2.73 (1.79-4.15)], perceived job insecurity [1.61 (1.13-2.30)], and perceived burnout [3.22 (2.41-4.31)] were associated with mod

In this study, the neutrosophic cubic graphs are further developed. We discussed and explored the open and the closed neighborhood for any vertex in neutrosophic cubic graphs, regular and totally regular neutrosophic cubic graphs, complete neutrosophic cubic graphs, balanced and strictly balanced neutrosophic cubic graphs, irregular and totally irregular neutrosophic cubic graphs, complement of a neutrosophic cubic graph, neighborly irregular and neighborly totally irregular neutrosophic cubic graphs, and highly irregular neutrosophic cubic graphs. It has been demonstrated that the proposed neutrosophic cubic graphs are associated with specific conditions. The comparison study of the proposed graphs with the existing cubic graphs has been carried out. Eventually, decision-making approaches for handling daily life problems such as effects of different factors on the neighboring countries of Pakistan and selection of a house based on the notions of proposed graphs are presented.

OBJECTIVE: To review the first two years of the primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical screening programme in an HPV vaccinated population. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 3 745 318 women with a primary HPV test between 1 December 2017 and 31 December 2019; most women aged <40 years had previously been offered vaccination against HPV16 and HPV18. INTERVENTIONS: Primary HPV screening with referral if HPV16 or HPV18 (HPV16/18) positive and triage with liquid based cytology testing (threshold atypical squamous cells-cannot exclude high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) for women who were positive for high risk HPV types other than 16/18. A 12 month follow-up HPV test was recommended in triaged women with a negative or low grade cytology result, with referral if they tested positive for any high risk HPV type at follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of women who had attended for their first HPV screening test, tested positive, and were referred for colposcopy; and short term risk of detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse, CIN grade 3 or worse, or cancer. RESULTS: 54.6% (n=3 507 281) of an estimated 6 428 677 eligible women aged 25-69 had undergone their first HPV test by the end of 2019. Among those attending for routine screening, positivity for HPV16/18 and for HPV types not 16/18 was, respectively, 2.0% and 6.6% in women aged 25-69 (n=3 045 844) and 2.2% and 13.3% in highly vaccinated cohorts of women aged 25-34 (n=768 362). Colposcopy referral (ages 25-69 years) was 3.5%, increasing to an estimated 6.2% after accounting for women who had not yet had a 12 month repeat test. Cervical cancer was detected in 0.98% (456/46 330) of women positive for HPV16/18 at baseline, including 0.32% (89/28 003) of women with HPV16/18 and negative cytology. Women with HPV types not 16/18 and negative or low grade cytology at both baseline and 12 months were at low risk of serious disease (3.4% CIN grade 3 or

OBJECTIVES: Previously, based on 6 months of follow-up, we showed that HPV self-sampling improved participation in cervical screening compared to a reminder letter for Pap testing for never- and under-screened women. Here, we report follow-up and related screening outcomes for women who participated in the initial self-sampling over two screening rounds. SETTING: The randomised controlled trial was conducted in Australia. METHODS: Never- and under-screened women were randomly allocated to the HPV self-sampling or the reminder for Pap test arm and followed at 6 and 36 months since the kits were first mailed. RESULTS: The first round of HPV self-sampling kits were mailed from May-July 2014 to 12 572 women. After 36 months, 19% of never-screened and 9% of under-screened women returned a kit for HPV testing; 2.7% were HPV 16/18 and 5.8% non-16/18 HPV positive. Compliance with first round follow-up was 84% (95% CI: 77.1-89.5%). Non-compliant and cytology triage negative women were mailed another kit at 12 months. Compliance at 12-month follow-up was 59.3% (49.4 to 68.6%). Of 37 women with a 12-month repeat HPV, 70% were positive. Of women who tested negative for HPV in the first round (n = 1573), 25% attended regular screening in the next round and none had CIN2 + detected. The overall prevalence of CIN2 + was 8.5 per 1000 screened (4.8 to 13.9 per 1000). CONCLUSION: While self-sampling can successfully engage women, compliance with repeat testing may require monitoring. The clinician-supported self-collection pathway now in use in Australia will likely improve women's engagement with follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) have been impacted psychologically due to their professional responsibilities over the prolonged era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The study aimed to identify the predictors of psychological distress, fear, and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic among HCWs. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among self-identified HCWs across 14 countries (12 from Asia and two from Africa). The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, the Fear of COVID-19 Scale, and the Brief Resilient Coping Scale were used to assess the psychological distress, fear, and coping of HCWs, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 2447 HCWs participated; 36% were doctors, and 42% were nurses, with a mean age of 36 (±12) years, and 70% were females. Moderate to very-high psychological distress was prevalent in 67% of the HCWs; the lowest rate was reported in the United Arab Emirates (1%) and the highest in Indonesia (16%). The prevalence of high levels of fear was 20%; the lowest rate was reported in Libya (9%) and the highest in Egypt (32%). The prevalence of medium-to-high resilient coping was 63%; the lowest rate was reported in Libya (28%) and the highest in Syria (76%). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has augmented the psychological distress among HCWs. Factors identified in this study should be considered in managing the wellbeing of HCWs, who had been serving as the frontline drivers in managing the crisis successfully across all participating countries. Furthermore, interventions to address their psychological distress should be considered.

BACKGROUND: In December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program transitioned from 2-yearly cytology-based to 5-yearly human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening, including a vaginal self-collection option. Until July 2022, this option was restricted to under- or never-screened people aged 30 years and older who refused a speculum exam. We investigated the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders involved in, or affected by, the initial implementation of the restricted self-collection pathway. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 49 stakeholders as part of the STakeholder Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were thematically analysed and coded to the Conceptual Framework for Implementation Outcomes. RESULTS: Stakeholders viewed the introduction of self-collection as an exciting opportunity to provide under-screened people with an alternative to a speculum examination. Adoption in clinical practice, however, was impacted by a lack of clear communication and promotion to providers, and the limited number of laboratories accredited to process self-collected samples. Primary care providers tasked with communicating and offering self-collection described confusion about the availability, participant eligibility, pathology processes, and clinical management processes for self-collection. Regulatory delay in developing an agreed protocol to approve laboratory processing of self-collected swabs, and consequently initially having one laboratory nationally accredited to process samples, led to missed opportunities and misinformation regarding the pathway's availability. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the introduction of self-collection was welcomed, clear communication from Government regarding setbacks in implementation and how to overcome these in practice were needed. As Australia moves to a policy of providing everyone eligible for screening the choice of se

Assessing biodiversity status and trends in plant communities is critical for understanding, quantifying and predicting the effects of global change on ecosystems. Vegetation plots record the occurrence or abundance of all plant species co-occurring within delimited local areas. This allows species absences to be inferred, information seldom provided by existing global plant datasets. Although many vegetation plots have been recorded, most are not available to the global research community. A recent initiative, called ‘sPlot’, compiled the first global vegetation plot database, and continues to grow and curate it. The sPlot database, however, is extremely unbalanced spatially and environmentally, and is not open-access. Here, we address both these issues by (a) resampling the vegetation plots using several environmental variables as sampling strata and (b) securing permission from data holders of 105 local-to-regional datasets to openly release data. We thus present sPlotOpen, the largest open-access dataset of vegetation plots ever released. sPlotOpen can be used to explore global diversity at the plant community level, as ground truth data in remote sensing applications, or as a baseline for biodiversity monitoring.

Abstract Background The current pandemic of COVID-19 impacted the psychological wellbeing of populations globally. Objectives We aimed to examine the extent and identify factors associated with psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study across 17 countries during Jun-2020 to Jan-2021. Levels of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale), fear of COVID-19 (Fear of COVID-19 Scale), and coping (Brief Resilient Coping Scale) were assessed. Results A total of 8,559 people participated; mean age (±SD) was 33(±13) years, 64% were females and 40% self-identified as frontline workers. More than two-thirds (69%) experienced moderate-to-very high levels of psychological distress, which was 46% in Thailand and 91% in Egypt. A quarter (24%) had high levels of fear of COVID-19, which was as low as 9% in Libya and as high as 38% in Bangladesh. More than half (57%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping; the lowest prevalence (3%) was reported in Australia and the highest (72%) in Syria. Being female (AOR 1.31 [95% CIs 1.09-1.57]), perceived distress due to change of employment status (1.56 [1.29-1.90]), comorbidity with mental health conditions (3.02 [1.20-7.60]) were associated with higher levels of psychological distress and fear. Doctors had higher psychological distress (1.43 [1.04-1.97]), but low levels of fear of COVID-19 (0.55 [0.41-0.76]); nurses had medium to high resilient coping (1.30 [1.03-1.65]). Conclusions The extent of psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping varied by country; however, we identified few higher risk groups who were more vulnerable

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has enormously affected the psychological well-being, social and working life of millions of people across the world. This study aimed to investigate the psychological distress, fear and coping strategies as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated factors among Malaysian residents. Methods Participants were invited to an online cross-sectional survey from Aug-Sep 2020. The study assessed psychological distress using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, level of fear using the Fear of COVID-19 Scale, and coping strategies using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to adjust for potential confounders. Results The mean age (±SD) of the participants (N = 720) was 31.7 (±11.5) years, and most of them were females (67.1%). Half of the participants had an income source, while 216 (30%) identified themselves as frontline health or essential service workers. People whose financial situation was impacted due to COVID-19 (AOR 2.16, 95% CIs 1.54–3.03), people who drank alcohol in the last four weeks (3.43, 1.45–8.10), people who were a patient (2.02, 1.39–2.93), and had higher levels of fear of COVID-19 (2.55, 1.70–3.80) were more likely to have higher levels of psychological distress. Participants who self-isolated due to exposure to COVID-19 (3.12, 1.04–9.32) and who had moderate to very high levels of psychological distress (2.56, 1.71–3.83) had higher levels of fear. Participants who provided care to a family member/patient with a suspected case of COVID-19 were more likely to be moderately to highly resilient compared to those who did not. Conclusion Vulnerable groups of

BACKGROUND: The current pandemic of COVID-19 impacted the psychological wellbeing of populations globally. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the extent and identify factors associated with psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study across 17 countries during Jun-2020 to Jan-2021. Levels of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale), fear of COVID-19 (Fear of COVID-19 Scale), and coping (Brief Resilient Coping Scale) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 8,559 people participated; mean age (±SD) was 33(±13) years, 64% were females and 40% self-identified as frontline workers. More than two-thirds (69%) experienced moderate-to-very high levels of psychological distress, which was 46% in Thailand and 91% in Egypt. A quarter (24%) had high levels of fear of COVID-19, which was as low as 9% in Libya and as high as 38% in Bangladesh. More than half (57%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping; the lowest prevalence (3%) was reported in Australia and the highest (72%) in Syria. Being female (AOR 1.31 [95% CIs 1.09-1.57]), perceived distress due to change of employment status (1.56 [1.29-1.90]), comorbidity with mental health conditions (3.02 [1.20-7.60]) were associated with higher levels of psychological distress and fear. Doctors had higher psychological distress (1.43 [1.04-1.97]), but low levels of fear of COVID-19 (0.55 [0.41-0.76]); nurses had medium to high resilient coping (1.30 [1.03-1.65]). CONCLUSIONS: The extent of psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping varied by country; however, we identified few higher risk groups who were more vulnerable than others. There is an urgent need to prioritise health and well-being of those people through well-designed intervention that may need to be tailored to meet country specific requirements.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has enormously affected the psychological well-being, social and working life of millions of people across the world. This study aimed to investigate the psychological distress, fear and coping strategies as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated factors among Malaysian residents. METHODS: Participants were invited to an online cross-sectional survey from Aug-Sep 2020. The study assessed psychological distress using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, level of fear using the Fear of COVID-19 Scale, and coping strategies using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: The mean age (±SD) of the participants (N = 720) was 31.7 (±11.5) years, and most of them were females (67.1%). Half of the participants had an income source, while 216 (30%) identified themselves as frontline health or essential service workers. People whose financial situation was impacted due to COVID-19 (AOR 2.16, 95% CIs 1.54-3.03), people who drank alcohol in the last four weeks (3.43, 1.45-8.10), people who were a patient (2.02, 1.39-2.93), and had higher levels of fear of COVID-19 (2.55, 1.70-3.80) were more likely to have higher levels of psychological distress. Participants who self-isolated due to exposure to COVID-19 (3.12, 1.04-9.32) and who had moderate to very high levels of psychological distress (2.56, 1.71-3.83) had higher levels of fear. Participants who provided care to a family member/patient with a suspected case of COVID-19 were more likely to be moderately to highly resilient compared to those who did not. CONCLUSION: Vulnerable groups of individuals such as patients and those impacted financially during COVID-19 should be supported for their mental wellbeing. Behavioural interventions should be targeted to reduce the impact of alcohol drinking during such crisis period.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed psychological distress and fear across the globe; however, factors associated with those issues or the ways people cope may vary by country or context. This study aimed to investigate the factors associated with psychological distress, fear, and coping strategies for people living in Bangladesh during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A cross-sectional study conducted in August-September 2020 using online platforms in Bangladesh. People residing in Bangladesh, aged ≥18 years, who were proficient in English and able to respond to online questionnaire. The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale was used to assess the psychological stress. Level of fear was assessed using the Fear of COVID-19 Scale, and strategies to cope were assessed using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Results: Of the 962 participants, half of them were aged between 30 and 59 years. Being born in Bangladesh, having graduate education, perceived distress due to employment change, effect of COVID-19 on financial situation, having multiple comorbidities, and visiting a healthcare provider in the last 4 weeks were associated with higher levels of both psychological distress and fear of COVID-19. Furthermore, higher psychological distress was associated with being a female (AOR 1.81, 95% CI 1.33-2.47, p < 0.001), being a frontline worker (AOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.04-2.15, p < 0.05), having pre-existing psychiatric problems (AOR 4.03, 95% CI 1.19-13.7, p < 0.05), being a smoker (AOR 2.02, 95% CI 1.32-3.09, p < 0.01), providing care to a known/suspected COVID-19 patient (AOR 1.96, 95% CI 1.40-2.72, p < 0.001), having a recent overseas travel history and being in self-quarantine (AOR 4.59, 95% CI 1.23-17.2, p < 0.05), self-isolation without COVID-19 (AOR 2.63, 95% CI 1.68-4.13, p < 0.001) or being COVID-19 positive (AOR 2.53, 95% CI 1.19-5.34, p < 0.05), and having high levels of fear of COVID-19 (AOR 3.27, 95% CI 2.29-4.66, p < 0.001). A higher level of fear was assoc

Motivation: Assessing biodiversity status and trends in plant communities is critical for understanding, quantifying and predicting the effects of global change on ecosystems. Vegetation plots record the occurrence or abundance of all plant species co-occurring within delimited local areas. This allows species absences to be inferred, information seldom provided by existing global plant datasets. Although many vegetation plots have been recorded, most are not available to the global research community. A recent initiative, called ‘sPlot’, compiled the first global vegetation plot database, and continues to grow and curate it. The sPlot database, however, is extremely unbalanced spatially and environmentally, and is not open-access. Here, we address both these issues by (a) resampling the vegetation plots using several environmental variables as sampling strata and (b) securing permission from data holders of 105 local-to-regional datasets to openly release data. We thus present sPlotOpen, the largest open-access dataset of vegetation plots ever released. sPlotOpen can be used to explore global diversity at the plant community level, as ground truth data in remote sensing applications, or as a baseline for biodiversity monitoring. Main types of variable contained: Vegetation plots (n = 95,104) recording cover or abundance of naturally co-occurring vascular plant species within delimited areas. sPlotOpen contains three partially overlapping resampled datasets (c. 50,000 plots each), to be used as replicates in global analyses. Besides geographical location, date, plot size, biome, elevation, slope, aspect, vegetation type, naturalness, coverage of various vegetation layers, and source dataset, plot-level data also include community-weighted means and variances of 18 plant functional traits from the TRY Plant Trait Database. Spatial location and grain: Global, 0.01–40,000 m². Time period and grain: 1888–2015, recording dates. Major taxa and level of measuremen

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the personal, professional and social life of Australians with some people more impacted than others. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify factors associated with psychological distress, fear and coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among residents in Australia, including patients, frontline health and other essential service workers, and community members during June 2020. Psychological distress was assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10); level of fear was assessed using the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S); and coping strategies were assessed using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS). Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with the extent of psychological distress, level of fear and coping strategies while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Among 587 participants, the majority (391, 73.2%) were 30-59 years old and female (363, 61.8%). More than half (349, 59.5%) were born outside Australia and two-third (418, 71.5%) completed at least a Bachelor's degree. The majority (401, 71.5%) had a source of income, 243 (42.3%) self-identified as a frontline worker, and 335 (58.9%) reported financial impact due to COVID-19. Comorbidities such as pre-existing mental health conditions (AOR 3.13, 95% CIs 1.12-8.75), increased smoking (8.66, 1.08-69.1) and alcohol drinking (2.39, 1.05-5.47) over the last four weeks, high levels of fear (2.93, 1.83-4.67) and being female (1.74, 1.15-2.65) were associated with higher levels of psychological distress. Perceived distress due to change of employment status (4.14, 1.39-12.4), alcohol drinking (3.64, 1.54-8.58), providing care to known or suspected cases (3.64, 1.54-8.58), being female (1.56, 1.00-2.45), being 30-59 years old (2.29, 1.21-4.35) and having medium to high levels of psychological distress (2.90, 1.82-5.62) were associated with a higher level

The National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) in Australia underwent major changes on December 1st, 2017. The program changed from 2-yearly Pap testing for women aged 18-69 years to 5-yearly HPV testing for women aged 25-74 years including differential management pathways for oncogenic HPV 16/18 positive versus HPV non16/18 positive test results and the option of self-collection for under-screened women. We conducted a survey among cervical screening providers in primary care to assess their level of preparedness in undertaking cervical screening before (pre-renewal) and after (post-renewal) the new program was implemented. Surveys were conducted between 14th August and 30th November 2017 (pre-renewal) and 9th February and 26th October 2018 (post-renewal) among cervical screening providers who attended education sessions related to the new guidelines. Preparedness was assessed in three areas: 1) level of comfort implementing the new guidelines (7 questions), 2) level of confidence in their ability to convey information about the new guidelines (9 questions) and 3) level of agreement regarding access to resources to support implementation (11 questions). Proportions were calculated for each question response and pre- and post-renewal periods compared using generalised linear models. Open-ended questions related to anticipated barriers and ways to overcome barriers were also included in the questionnaires. Compared to the pre-renewal period, a higher proportion of practitioners in the post-renewal period were more comfortable offering routine screening to women ≥25 years (p = 0.005) and more confident explaining the rationale for not screening before 25 years (p = 0.015); confident explaining a positive HPV 16/18 (p = 0.04) and HPV non 16/18(p = 0.013) test result and were comfortable with not referring women with a positive HPV non 16/18 test result and low grade/negative cytology for colposcopy (p = 0.01). A higher proportion of Victorian practitioners in the post

A fall in the positive predictive value (PPV) of cytological predictions of high-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions (HSIL) or adenocarcinoma-in-situ (AIS) has been predicted in the post-HPV vaccination era due to the decrease in underlying prevalence of cervical lesions. Data was extracted from the Victorian Cervical Screening Registry including cervical cytology tests taken between 2000 and 2016 and any subsequent histology performed within 6 months of the cytology. PPV was calculated for each age group (<20, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70+ years) and calendar year. The x2 (chi-square) test was used to identify significant trends in PPV over time in each age group in both the pre-vaccination (2000-2006) and the post-vaccination (2007-2016) periods. The overall PPV of HSIL/AIS cytology in predicting histologically confirmed high grade disease (HGD, HSIL/AIS+) was 75% and this was consistent across the different calendar years. When stratified by age group, there was a decreasing trend in the PPV in women aged <20 years (ptrend = 0.0006) and 20-24 years (ptrend = 0.0004) in the post-vaccination period but not in the pre-vaccination period (ptrend = 0.82 and ptrend = 0.73, respectively). No such decline in PPV was noted in either the pre-vaccination or the post-vaccination periods for any other age groups except the oldest women, aged 60-69 years and 70+ years. The decline in PPV of HSIL/AIS cytology in predicting HGD in age groups <20 and 20-24 years in the post-vaccination period could be an impact of the HPV vaccination.

This study demonstrates that the clinical sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of the novel cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test on the cobas 6800 system for high-risk HPV types fulfills the criteria for use in population-based cervical screening. The criteria were formulated by an international consortium, using the cobas 4800 HPV test as a validated reference assay. The cobas HPV test detected over 98% of histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) lesions in women age 30 years or older, with a specificity of 98.9% compared with the reference cobas 4800 test. Both the intra- and interlaboratory agreement for the cobas HPV test were 98%. The clinical performance of the cobas HPV test is comparable to those of longitudinally validated HPV assays and fulfills the criteria for its use in primary cervical screening.