ArticleBMC health services research2014
The characteristics and relevant factors of Pap smear test use for women with intellectual disabilities in Taiwan.
Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A literature review of cancer diagnostic tests and treatments in adults with intellectual disability.HRB open research · 2025Pooled it
- The Right to Sexuality, Reproductive Health, and Found a Family for People with Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Cancer screening in people with intellectual disability: a scoping review of participation, barriers, facilitators, and improvement strategies within the EUCanScreen initiative.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Comparison of Cervical Cancer Screening Used between Individuals with Disabilities and Individuals without Disabilities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparison of colorectal cancer screening between people with and without disability: a nationwide matched cohort study.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Comparisons of Papanicolaou Utilization and Cervical Cancer Detection between Rural and Urban Women in Taiwan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study examines the Pap smear usage conditions and relevant influential factors for 18,204 women aged 30 years and above with intellectual disabilities, using nationwide data from 2008.
methodsThe research method of this study is secondary data analysis. The data was obtained from three nationwide databases from 2006 to 2008. This study employed descriptive statistics to analyze the use and rate of Pap smear testing by women with intellectual disabilities. Chi-square test was used to assess the correlation between Pap smear test usage and several variables. Logistic regression analysis was employed to explore the factors that influence Pap smear test usage.
resultsThe results show that 4.83% (n =880) of women with intellectual disabilities underwent Pap smear tests. Pap smear test usage rates exhibit a declining trend with increases in age. Factors that significantly influence Pap smear test use include age, urbanization level of resident area, monthly salary, aboriginal status, marital status, existence of DM, severity of disability.
conclusionsThe women with intellectual disabilities had a low use rate of Pap smear test, which is significantly less than the 28.8% usage rate for the general population of women aged 30 years and above.
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.