Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27845597›Full record

Trial reportScandinavian journal of primary health care2016

Effects of numerical information on intention to participate in cervical screening among women offered HPV vaccination: a randomised study.

Mie Sara Hestbech, Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, Jakob Kragstrup, Volkert Siersma, John Brodersen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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) · 2019
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Mie Sara Hestbecha The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health , University of Copenhagen , Copenhagen K , Denmark.
Dorte Gyrd-Hansenb COHERE, Department of Business and Economics and Department of Public Health , University of Southern Denmark , Odense M , Denmark.
Jakob Kragstrupa The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health , University of Copenhagen , Copenhagen K , Denmark.
Volkert Siersmaa The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health , University of Copenhagen , Copenhagen K , Denmark.
John Brodersena The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health , University of Copenhagen , Copenhagen K , Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the effects of different types of information about benefits and harms of cervical screening on intention to participate in screening among women in the first cohorts offered human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination.

designRandomised survey study.

settingDenmark. SUBJECTS: A random sample of women from the birth cohorts 1993, 1994 and 1995 drawn from the general population.

interventionsA web-based questionnaire and information intervention. We randomised potential respondents to one of the following four different information modules about benefits and harms of cervical screening: no information; non-numerical information; and two numerical information modules. Moreover, we provided HPV-vaccinated women in one of the arms with numerical information about benefits and harms in two steps: firstly, information without consideration of HPV vaccination and subsequently information conditional on HPV vaccination.

main outcome measureSelf-reported intention to participate in cervical screening.

resultsA significantly lower proportion intended to participate in screening in the two groups of women receiving numerical information compared to controls with absolute differences of 10.5 (95% CI: 3.3-17.6) and 7.7 (95% CI: 0.4-14.9) percentage points, respectively. Among HPV-vaccinated women, we found a significantly lower intention to participate in screening after numerical information specific to vaccinated women (OR of 0.38).

conclusionsWomen are sensitive to numerical information about the benefits and harms of cervical screening. Specifically, our results suggest that HPV-vaccinated women are sensitive to information about the expected changes in benefits and harms of cervical screening after implementation of HPV vaccination. KEY POINTS Women were less likely to participate in cervical screening when they received numerical information about benefits and harms compared to non-numerical or no information. Specifically, numerical information about the potential impact of the reduced risk of cervical cancer among HPV-vaccinated women reduced the intention to participate among vaccinated women.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeIntentionMass ScreeningPapillomavirus VaccinesPatient Acceptance of Health CareVaccinationAdultCohort StudiesDecision MakingDenmarkFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansPapillomaviridaeSurveys and QuestionnairesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsPapillomavirus Vaccinescancer screeningCervical screeningDenmarkgeneral practiceHPV vaccinationinformed choicemedical decision-makingmedical prevention

Identifiers

PMID27845597
PMCPMC5217282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.