ArticleScientific reports2015
Enhancing participation to health screening campaigns by group interactions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Untangling choices: how awareness and socio-economic status shape malaria vaccination decisions among Ghanaian women.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Waist-to-calf circumference ratio as a potential indicator of diabetes risk: results from the Longevity Check-Up (Lookup) 8.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Relationship Between Health Changes and Community Health Screening Participation Among Older People.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Influencing dynamics on social networks without knowledge of network microstructure.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021Article
- Effect of neurological screening on early dementia detection in southern Italy.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Article
- Primary Drivers of Willingness to Continue to Participate in Community-Based Health Screening for Chronic Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Improving the prevention efficacy of health screening campaigns by increasing their attendance rate represents a challenge that calls for new strategies. This paper analyzes the response to a Pap test screening campaign of 155,000 women over the last decade. Using a mathematical model of statistical physics origins we derive a quantitative estimate of the mutual influence between participating groups. Different scenarios and possible actions are studied from the cost-benefit perspective. The performance of alternative strategies to improve participation are forecasted and compared. The results show that the standard strategies with incentives concentrated toward the low participating groups are outperformed by those toward pivotal groups with higher influence power. Our method provides a flexible tool useful to support policy maker decisions while complying with ethical regulations on privacy and confidentiality.
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.