ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2016
Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening-A systematic review with meta-analyses.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- How does information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening alter the intention to be screened?: a randomized survey of Norwegian women.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2019Trial
- Effects of numerical information on intention to participate in cervical screening among women offered HPV vaccination: a randomised study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2016Trial
- Short term complications of conisation and long term effects on fertility related outcomes in Denmark: register based nationwide cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Exploring the barriers to cervical screening and perspectives on new self-sampling methods amongst under-served groups.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Perspectives of international experts and the Danish citizens on the 'relevant knowledge' that citizens need for making informed choices about participation in cancer screening: Qualitative study.Patient education and counseling · 2025Article
- Questioning 'Informed Choice' in Medical Screening: The Role of Neoliberal Rhetoric, Culture, and Social Context.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Cervical cancer, geographical inequalities, prevention and barriers in resource depleted countries.Oncology letters · 2022Review
- Providing more balanced information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening: A randomized survey among US and Norwegian women.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Article
- How Do Women Interpret the NHS Information Leaflet about Cervical Cancer Screening?Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019Article
- What benefits and harms are important for a decision about cervical screening? A study of the perspective of different subgroups of women.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
- Knowledge and perceptions regarding triage among human papillomavirus-tested women: A qualitative study of perspectives of low-income women in Argentina.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate whether invitations for publicly funded cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable an informed choice about participation.
designCross-sectional study using a checklist of 23 information items on benefits and harms from cervical screening and the risks related to cervical cancer. MATERIAL: Invitations to publicly funded cervical screening in 10 Scandinavian and English-speaking countries.
settingTen Scandinavian and English speaking countries.
participantsSixteen screening units representing 10 Scandinavian and English speaking countries.
main outcome measuresNumber of information items presented in invitations for cervical screening.
resultsWe contacted 21 coordinating units from 11 countries and 20 (95%) responded. Of these, four units did not issue invitations, but the remaining 16 coordinating units in 10 different countries supplied a sample. The invitations for cervical screening were generally information poor and contained a median of only four out of 23 information items possible (17%), ranging from 0 to 12 (0-52%). The most important harms of cancer screening, overdiagnosis and overtreatment, were typically downplayed or unmentioned. The same applied to other important harms, such as false-positive results and the psychological consequences from an abnormal test result. The majority of invitations took a paternalistic approach. While only two invitations (17%) included a pre-assigned appointment date, eight (70%) of the invitations contained strong appeals for participation.
conclusionsInvitations to cervical cancer screening were information poor and biased in favour of participation. This means that informed choice is not possible, which is in conflict with modern requirements for personal involvement in medical decisions.
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.