Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24914536›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Intent to participate in future cervical cancer screenings is lower when satisfaction with the decision to be vaccinated is neutral.

Natalie Marya Alexander, Diane Medved Harper, Johanna Claire Comes, Melissa Smith Smith, Melinda Ann Heutinck, Sandra Martin Handley, Debra Ann Ahern

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Natalie Marya AlexanderDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America; Department of Family Medicine, Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences, Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America.
Diane Medved HarperDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America; Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America; University of Missouri-Kansas City Student Health and Wellness, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America.
Johanna Claire ComesUniversity of Missouri-Kansas City Student Health and Wellness, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America.
Melissa Smith SmithUniversity of Missouri-Kansas City Student Health and Wellness, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America.
Melinda Ann HeutinckUniversity of Missouri-Kansas City Student Health and Wellness, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America.
Sandra Martin HandleyUniversity of Missouri-Kansas City Student Health and Wellness, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America.
Debra Ann AhernDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America; University of Missouri-Kansas City Student Health and Wellness, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHPV vaccination programs have adversely affected participation in future cervical cancer screening. The purpose of this study is to determine the influence of decision satisfaction with accepting/rejecting the HPV vaccine, as well as traditional clinical factors, on the intent to participate in future screening. METHODS AND

findingsFrom January 2011 through August 2012 women 18-26 years old presenting for health care in an urban college student health and wellness clinic in the US Midwest were asked to complete a descriptive and medical history survey including a six element decisional satisfaction survey scored on 5-point Likert scales, where the intent to participate in future cervical cancer screening was measured. Of the 568 women who completed the decisional satisfaction survey, 17% of those <21 years and 7% ≥ 21 years indicated no intent to participate in future cervical cancer screenings. Among women of current screening age, the univariate risk factors of race/ethnicity, contraceptive use, number of lifetime sexual partners, and receipt of HPV vaccine were not predictors of intent for future cervical cancer screening. Instead, only a history of a prior Pap test was a significant positive predictor and only a decisional satisfaction of 'neutral' (Likert score = 3) for any of the four decisional satisfaction elements was a significant negative predictor. For the decisional satisfaction element "best for me personally", there was a 78% decreased likelihood of intending to participate in future screening if the satisfaction was neutral rather than firm (aOR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.05-0.91) and a 26 fold increased likelihood if she had had a prior Pap test (aOR = 26, 95% CI: 5-133).

conclusionsHPV vaccination implementation programs must help women be the owner of their decision around HPV vaccination and understand the importance of future participation in cervical cancer screening.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeIntentionPapillomavirus VaccinesPatient Acceptance of Health CarePersonal SatisfactionAdolescentAdultEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansImmunization ProgramsMidwestern United StatesOdds RatioProspective StudiesRisk FactorsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID24914536
PMCPMC4051698

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.