Trial reportJournal of epidemiology and community health2003
Randomised controlled trial of the effect of evidence based information on women's willingness to participate in cervical cancer screening.
Trial report in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Screening for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer: systematic reviews to inform an update to recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2021Guideline
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2015Guideline
- Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- A systematic review of information in decision aids.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2007Pooled it
- The impact of influences in a medical screening programme invitation: a randomized controlled trial.European journal of public health · 2023Trial
- How does information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening alter the intention to be screened?: a randomized survey of Norwegian women.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2019Trial
- Crowd-figure-pictograms improve women's knowledge about mammography screening: results from a randomised controlled trial.BMC research notes · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Effects of numerical information on intention to participate in cervical screening among women offered HPV vaccination: a randomised study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2016Trial
- Providing more balanced information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening: A randomized survey among US and Norwegian women.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- How does HPV vaccination status relate to risk perceptions and intention to participate in cervical screening? a survey study.BMC public health · 2016Article
- Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2016Article
- What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2013Review
- The ethics of information: absolute risk reduction and patient understanding of screening.Journal of general internal medicine · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveTo assess whether providing women with additional information on the pros and cons of screening, compared with information currently offered by the NHS, affects their intention to attend for screening.
designRandomised controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the control, (based on an NHS Cervical Screening Programme leaflet currently used), or the intervention leaflet (containing additional information on risks and uncertainties).
settingThree general practices in Birmingham.
participants300 women aged 20 to 64 attending the practices during a one month period.
main outcome measuresIntention to attend for screening. MAIN
results283 women (94.3%) completed the study. Fewer women in the intervention (79%) than the control group (88%) expressed intention to have screening after reading the information leaflet (difference between groups 9.2%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 3.2% to 21.7%). The crude odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI was 0.50 (0.26 to 0.97). After adjusting for other factors, the trend persisted (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.29). Having a previous Pap smear was the only significant predictor of intention to have screening (adjusted OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.21). Subgroup analysis showed no intervention effect in intended uptake between women at higher and lower risk of cervical cancer (p=0.59).
conclusionsProviding women with evidence based information on the risks, uncertainties, and the benefits of screening, is likely to deter some, but not differentially those at higher risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.