ArticleBMC public health2017
Ethnic minority women prefer strong recommendations to be screened for cancer.
Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attitudes towards being offered a choice of self-sampling or clinician sampling for cervical screening: A cross-sectional survey of women taking part in a clinical validation of HPV self-collection devices.Journal of medical screening · 2025Article
- Health inequalities in cancer care: a literature review of pathways to diagnosis in the United Kingdom.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Review
- Review
- Low attendance by non-native women to human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening - A Danish nationwide register-based cohort study.Preventive medicine reports · 2020Article
- Exploring Asian Indian views about cancer and participation in cancer research: an evaluation of a culturally tailored educational intervention.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancer screening invitations can explicitly recommend attendance or encourage individuals to consider the risks and benefits before deciding for themselves. Public preferences for these approaches might vary. We explored ethnic minority women's preferences for a strong recommendation to be screened.
methodsWomen aged 30-60 years from Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, African and white British backgrounds (n = 120 per group) completed face-to-face interviews with a multi-lingual interviewer. The interview included a question on which approach to screening invitations they would prefer: i) A strong recommendation from the National Health Service (NHS) to go for screening, ii) A statement that the NHS thinks you should go for screening, but it's up to you to decide, iii) No recommendation. Analyses examined predictors of preference for a strong recommendation.
resultsPreferences varied by ethnicity (χ
conclusionsA strong recommendation to participate in cancer screening appears to be important for ethnic minority women, particularly non-English speakers. Future research could explore how to best arrive at a consensus that respects patient autonomy while also accommodating those that would prefer to be guided by a trusted source.
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.