Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24735469›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2014

Does the primary screening test influence women's anxiety and intention to screen for cervical cancer? A randomized survey of Norwegian women.

Emily A Burger, Mari Nygård, Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, Tron Anders Moger, Ivar Sonbo Kristiansen

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. 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) · 2019
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Emily A BurgerUniversity of Oslo, Department of Health Management and Health Economics, PO BOX 1089, Blindern, Oslo 0137, Norway. emily.burger@medisin.uio.no.
Mari Nygård
Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
Tron Anders Moger
Ivar Sonbo Kristiansen
University of Oslo · NOCancer Registry of Norway · NOUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCountries must decide whether or not to replace primary cytology-based screening with primary human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening. We aimed to assess how primary screening for an HPV infection, a sexually transmitted infection (STI), and the type of information included in the invitation letter, will affect screening intention.

methodsWe randomized a representative sample of Norwegian women to one of three invitation letters: 1) Pap smear, 2) HPV testing or 3) HPV testing with additional information about the nature of the infection. Intention to participate, anxiety level and whether women intend to follow-up abnormal results were measured between groups using chi-squared and nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis tests. Determinants of intention were explored using logistic regression.

resultsResponses from 3540 women were representative of the Norwegian population with respect to age, civil status and geographic location. No significant difference across invitation letters was found in women's stated intention to participate (range: 91.8-92.3%), anxiety (39-42% were either quite or very worried) or to follow-up after an abnormal result (range: 97.1-97.6%). Strength of intention to participate was only marginally lower for HPV-based invitation letters, albeit significant (p-value = 0.008), when measured on a scale. Only 36-40% of respondents given the HPV invitations correctly understood that they likely had an STI.

conclusionsWe found that switching to primary HPV screening, independent of additional information about HPV infections, is not likely to reduce screening participation rates or increase anxiety; however, women lacked the ability to interpret the meaning of an HPV-test result.

Indexed as

AnxietyIntentionPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdultAgedData CollectionFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMiddle AgedNorwayPapanicolaou TestPapillomaviridaePapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID24735469
PMCPMC4021156
OpenAlexW2163599994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.