Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27516072›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2016

Eliciting women's cervical screening preferences: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.

Brianne Wood, Susan Rogers Van Katwyk, Ziad El-Khatib, Susan McFaul, Monica Taljaard, Erica Wright, Ian D Graham, Julian Little

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 90% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Brianne WoodSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Roger-Guindon Hall, Room 3105, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, K1H 8M5, Ontario, Canada. Bwood096@uottawa.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-9958-4824
Susan Rogers Van KatwykSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Roger-Guindon Hall, Room 3105, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, K1H 8M5, Ontario, Canada.
Ziad El-KhatibDepartment of Public Health Sciences, K9, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18A; Widerströmska huset, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Susan McFaulDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ottawa, 1919 Riverside Dr., Suite 201, Ottawa, K1H 1A2, Ontario, Canada.
Monica TaljaardSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Roger-Guindon Hall, Room 3105, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, K1H 8M5, Ontario, Canada.
Erica WrightHealth Sciences Library, University of Ottawa, Roger-Guindon Hall, Room 1020, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, K1H 8M5, Ontario, Canada.
Ian D GrahamSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Roger-Guindon Hall, Room 3105, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, K1H 8M5, Ontario, Canada.
Julian LittleSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Roger-Guindon Hall, Room 3105, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, K1H 8M5, Ontario, Canada.
University of Ottawa · CAUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the accumulation of evidence regarding potential harms of cancer screening in recent years, researchers, policy-makers, and the public are becoming more critical of population-based cancer screening. Consequently, a high-quality cancer screening program should consider individuals' values and preferences when determining recommendations. In cervical cancer screening, offering women autonomy is considered a "person-centered" approach to health care services; however, it may impact the effectiveness of the program should women choose to not participate. As part of a larger project to investigate women's cervical screening preferences and correlates of these preferences, this systematic review will capture quantitative and qualitative investigations of women's cervical screening preferences and the methods used to elicit them. DESIGN AND

methodsThis mixed methods synthesis will use a thematic analysis approach to synthesize qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence. This protocol describes the methods that will be used in this investigation. A search strategy has been developed with a health librarian and peer reviewed using PRESS. Based on this strategy, five databases and the gray literature will be searched for studies that meet the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included individual studies will be examined using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Three reviewers will extract data from the primary studies on the tools or instruments used to elicit women's preferences regarding cervical cancer screening, theoretical frameworks used, outcomes measured, the outstanding themes from quantitative and qualitative evidence, and the identified preferences for cervical cancer screening. We will describe the relationships between study results and the study population, "intervention" (e.g., tool or instrument), and context. We will follow the PRISMA reporting guideline. We will compare findings across studies and between study methods (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative study designs). The strength of the synthesized findings will be assessed using the validated GRADE and CERQual tool. DISCUSSION: This review will inform the development of a tool to elicit women's cervical screening preferences. Understanding the methods used to elicit women's preferences and what is known about women's cervical screening preferences will be useful for guideline developers who wish to incorporate a woman-centered approach specifically for cervical screening guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016035737.

Indexed as

CommunicationConsumer BehaviorDecision MakingPatient Acceptance of Health CarePhysician-Patient RelationsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPersonal AutonomyResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27516072
PMCPMC4982264
OpenAlexW2512587292

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.