ArticleHealth promotion practice2016
Addressing Risk and Reluctance at the Nexus of HIV and Anal Cancer Screening.
Article in Health promotion practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Disclosure Decisions and Communication About HPV-Related Cancer: A Qualitative Exploration of Stigma and Social Support.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Acceptability of anal cancer screening tests for women living with HIV in the EVVA study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2020Article
- A multi-disciplinary model of survivorship care following definitive chemoradiation for anal cancer.BMC cancer · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Anal cancer disproportionately burdens persons living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) regardless of natal sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, and ethnic identity. Culturally competent communications are recommended to address health disparities, with sociocultural relevance ensured through constituent dialogic processes. Results are presented from six provider focus groups conducted to inform the promotion/education component of a Hawai'i-based project on anal cancer screening tools. Krueger's focus group methodology guided discussion queries. Verbatim transcripts of digitally recorded discussions were analyzed using grounded theory and PEN-3 procedures. Adherence to an audit trail ensured analytic rigor. Grounded theory analysis detected the overall theme of risk and reluctance to anal cancer screening, characterized by anal cancer not being "on the radar" of PLHIV, conflicting attributions of the anus and anal sex, fear of sex-shaming/-blaming, and other interrelated conceptual categories. PEN-3 analysis revealed strategies for destigmatizing anal cancer, through "real talk" (proactive, candid, nonjudgmental discussion) nested in a framework of sexual health and overall well-being, with additional tailoring for relevance to Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, transgender persons, and other marginalized groups. Application of strategies for health practice are specific to the Hawai'i context, yet may offer considerations for developing strengths-based, culturally relevant screening promotion/education with diverse PLHIV in other locales.
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.