Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28011816›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Psychological Impact of Primary Screening (PIPS) for HPV: a protocol for a cross-sectional evaluation within the NHS cervical screening programme.

Emily McBride, Laura Marlow, Alice S Forster, Sue Moss, Jonathan Myles, Henry Kitchener, Julietta Patnick, Jo Waller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
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.

Emily McBrideEpidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Laura MarlowEpidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Alice S ForsterEpidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Sue MossWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Jonathan MylesWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Henry KitchenerWomen's Cancer Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Julietta PatnickCancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jo WallerEpidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 17429Cancer Research UK C49896/A17429Cancer Research UK C7492/A17219
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe NHS Cervical Screening Programme is now using human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as the primary test in six sentinel sites in England, with the intention of rolling this out across the whole of England. Previous research evaluating HPV testing in the cervical screening context suggests that an HPV-positive result may increase anxiety beyond that associated with abnormal cytology, but this has not been explored in the context of primary HPV testing. The main aim of this study is to explore the impact of the HPV primary screening programme on anxiety and distress. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional between-groups design (total N ∼ 673) will be employed to assess the psychological impact of different HPV and cytology results at three time points: shortly after receiving the results, and 6 and 12 months later. Women will fall into one of six groups based on their screening results. The primary outcomes will be anxiety and general distress. Secondary outcomes will include understanding of screening results, perceived risk of cervical cancer, psychosexual functioning, intention to attend future screening and knowledge of HPV. General linear modelling will be used to test for differences between groups and changes over the three time points. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Health Research Authority approval was received on 26 September 2016. Ethical approval was received from London- Surrey Borders NHS Research Ethics Committee on 30 August 2016. Section 251 approval was received from the Confidentiality Advisory Group on 24 August 2016. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and presentation at national and international conferences.

Indexed as

PapillomaviridaeAdultAnxietyComprehensionCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerEnglandEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansLondonMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsResearch DesignHPV primary testing, cervicsMass screeningNHS cervical screening programmePsychological evaluation HPV

Identifiers

PMID28011816
PMCPMC5223654

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.