BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, lower high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) positivity but higher cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ detection were found in self-collected compared with clinician-collected samples. To investigate the possible reason for these differences, we compared sociodemographic and screening characteristics of women and related these to screening outcomes. METHODS: We extracted data from PALGA on all primary hrHPV screens and associated follow-up tests for 857,866 screened women, invited in 2017 and 2018. We linked these data with sociodemographic data from Statistics Netherlands. Logistic regression was performed for hrHPV positivity and CIN 2+/3+ detection. RESULTS: Out of the 857,866 women, 6.8% chose to use a self-sampling device. A higher proportion of self-sampling users was ages 30 to 35 years, was not previously screened, was living in a one-person household, or was the breadwinner in the household. After adjustment for these factors self-sampling had lower hrHPV positivity (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.63-0.68)) as compared with clinician-collected sampling, as well as lower odds of CIN 2+ (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.82) and CIN 3+ (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95) detection. CONCLUSIONS: It is likely that the observed differences between the two sampling methods are not only related to sociodemographic differences, but related to differences in screening test accuracy and/or background risk. IMPACT: Self-sampling can be used for targeting underscreened women, as a more convenient screening tool. Further investigation is required to evaluate how to implement self-sampling, when it is used as a primary instrument in routine screening. See related commentary by Arbyn et al., p. 159.