Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25636181›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2015

Why are we not screening for anal cancer routinely - HIV physicians' perspectives on anal cancer and its screening in HIV-positive men who have sex with men: a qualitative study.

Jason J Ong, Meredith Temple-Smith, Marcus Chen, Sandra Walker, Andrew Grulich, Jennifer Hoy, Christopher K Fairley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jason J OngMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, 3010, Australia. j.ong@unimelb.edu.au.
Meredith Temple-SmithGeneral Practice and Primary Health Care Academic Centre, University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia. m.temple-smith@unimelb.edu.au.
Marcus ChenMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia. MChen@mshc.org.au.
Sandra WalkerMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia. SWalker@mshc.org.au.
Andrew GrulichKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Darlinghurst, NSW, 2010, Australia. AGrulich@kirby.unsw.edu.au.
Jennifer HoyDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Alfred Health and Monash University, 55 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. Jennifer.hoy@monash.edu.
Christopher K FairleyMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia. Cfairley@mshc.org.au.
Melbourne Sexual Health Centre · AUMelbourne Health · AUMonash Alfred Psychiatry Research centre · AUSt Vincent's Clinic · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnal cancer is a priority health issue in HIV positive men who have sex with men. Anal cancer screening may be aimed at either detecting the precursor lesion (high grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia(HGAIN)) or early anal cancer. To date no qualitative study has explored the views of HIV physicians regarding anal cancer and its screening.

methodsWe conducted indepth interviews with 20 HIV physicians (Infectious diseases, Immunology, Sexual health, General practice) in different settings (hospital, sexual health centres, general practice) from around Australia. Framework analysis was used to identify themes.

resultsHIV physicians viewed anal cancer as a significant health issue and all agreed on the importance of anal cancer screening amongst HIV positive MSM if a valid screening method was available. Barriers for utilizing anal cytology was based primarily on the theme of insufficient evidence (e.g. no studies demonstrating reduction in mortality following screening or effective treatments for HGAIN). Barriers for utilizing DARE for early cancer detection were based on systemic factors (e.g. lack of opportunity, lack of priority, differences in HIV care practices); health provider factors (lack of evidence, difficulty discussing with patients, lack of confidence in DARE) and patient factors (perceived discomfort of DARE for patients, low anal cancer risk awareness). Physicians were willing to consider the idea of patient self-examination and partner-examination although concerns were raised regarding its reliability and issues surrounding partner dynamics.

conclusionsHIV physicians remain ambivalent regarding the most effective means to screen for anal cancer. More research is needed to address the physicians' concerns before anal cancer screening can be implemented into routine HIV care.

Indexed as

HIV SeropositivityHomosexuality, MaleAdultAnus NeoplasmsAustraliaEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID25636181
PMCPMC4314790
OpenAlexW2121203432

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.