Trial reportJournal of women's health (2002)2014
Overview of the CDC Cervical Cancer (Cx3) Study: an educational intervention of HPV testing for cervical cancer screening.
Trial report in Journal of women's health (2002), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Type-specific HPV and Pap test results among low-income, underserved women: providing insights into management strategies.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2014Trial
- Multimodal MRI Analysis of Cervical Cancer on the Basis of Artificial Intelligence Algorithm.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Overview of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Case Investigation of Cervical Cancer Study.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2019Article
- Changes in Knowledge and Beliefs About Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cancer Screening Intervals in Low-Income Women After an Educational Intervention.Journal of primary care & community health · 2016Article
- Racial and ethnic differences in human papillomavirus positivity and risk factors among low-income women in Federally Qualified Health Centers in the United States.Preventive medicine · 2015Article
- Article
- Communication practices about HPV testing among providers in Federally Qualified Health Centers.Preventive medicine reportsArticle
- Learning From Cervical Cancer Survivors: An Examination of Barriers and Facilitators to Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women in the United States.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
- Provider beliefs associated with cervical cancer screening interval recommendations: A pilot study in Federally Qualified Health Centers.Preventive medicine reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe recommended screening interval when using the Papanicolaou (Pap) and human papillomavirus (HPV) test (co-testing) is 5 years. However because providers are reluctant to extend the screening interval, we launched a study to identify barriers to appropriate use of the co-test and to implement an educational intervention to promote evidence-based screening practices. This article provides an overview of the study including the multi-component intervention and participant demographics.
methodsThe study was conducted in 15 clinics associated with 6 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in Illinois. Each clinic received HPV tests to administer with routine Pap tests among enrolled patients (n=2,246) and was assigned to a study arm: intervention arm (n=7) received a multi-component educational intervention (small media, academic detailing, and website) for providers and printed educational materials for patients, and control arm (n=8) received printed copies of general guidelines. Clinic coordinators (n=15), providers (n=98), and patients (n=984) completed baseline surveys to assess screening practices.
resultsProviders reported an average age of 41.3 years and were predominately female, non-Hispanic, and white. Patients reported an average age of 45.0 years and nearly two-thirds were Hispanic or black. Of the 2,246 patients, 89% had a normal co-test. Lessons learned from the study included the importance of buy-in at a high level in the organization, a champion provider, and a clinical coordinator devoted to the study.
conclusionMaterials from this study can be adapted to educate providers and patients on appropriate use of the co-test and encourage extended screening intervals as a safe and effective practice.
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.