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.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Psychological effect of cervical cancer screening when changing primary screening method from cytology to high-risk human papilloma virus testing.International journal of cancer · 2019Trial
- 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
- Understanding Cervical Cancer Screening Intentions Through the Lens of Care-Seeking Behavior: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Islamic Women in Ghana.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Understanding hesitancy: barriers to HR-HPV self-sampling among women at high risk for cervical cancer in Latvia.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- 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
- Understanding HPV-positive women's needs and experiences in relation to patient-provider communication issues: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Clinical Performance of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Testing versus Cytology for Cervical Cancer Screening: Results of a Large Danish Implementation Study.Clinical epidemiology · 2020Article
- Anxiety and Depression in Thai Women with Abnormal Cervical Cytology who Attended Colposcopic Unit in Thammasat University HospitalAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.