Trial reportBMJ open2016
Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Screening for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer: systematic reviews to inform an update to recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- The impact of influences in a medical screening programme invitation: a randomized controlled trial.European journal of public health · 2023Trial
- The new NHS England 'ping and book' screening service is set to exclude thousands of women.Journal of medical screening · 2025Article
- Socioeconomic, lifestyle and biological determinants of cervical screening coverage: Lolland-Falster Health Study, Denmark.European journal of public health · 2023Article
- Questioning 'Informed Choice' in Medical Screening: The Role of Neoliberal Rhetoric, Culture, and Social Context.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population at risk of lung cancer in the UK (SUMMIT): a prospective, longitudinal cohort study.The Lancet. Public health · 2023Article
- Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study.HRB open research · 2023Article
- Article
- Young Danish HPV vaccinated women's knowledge, barriers and facilitators towards cervical cancer screening: A qualitative study.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Offering an app to book cervical screening appointments: A service evaluation.Journal of medical screening · 2020Article
- Perspectives of non-attenders for cervical cancer screening in Norway: a qualitative focus group study.BMJ open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe main barrier to optimal effect in many established population-based screening programmes against cervical cancer is low participation. In Norway, a routine health service integrated population-based screening programme has been running since 1995, using open invitations and reminders. The aim of this randomised health service study was to pilot scheduled appointments and assess their potential for increased participation.
methodsWithin the national screening programme, we randomised 1087 women overdue for screening to receive invitations with scheduled appointments (intervention) or the standard open reminders (control). Letters were sent 2-4 weeks before the scheduled appointments at three centres: a midwife clinic, a public healthcare centre and a general practitioner centre. The primary outcome was participation at 6 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were participation at 1 and 3 months. Risk ratios (RRs) overall, and stratified by screening centre, age group and previous participation, were calculated using log-binomial regression.
resultsAt 6 months, 20% of the 510 women in the control group and 37% of the 526 women in the intervention group had participated in screening, excluding 51 women in total from analysis due to participation just before invitation and therefore not yet visible in the central records. The RR for participation at 6 months was 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3). There was no significant heterogeneity between centres or age groups. Participation increased among women both with (RR 1.7; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.1) and without (RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.3 to 9.2) previous participation. The RRs for participation at 1 and 3 months were 4.0 (95% CI 2.6 to 6.2) and 2.7 (95% CI 2.1 to 3.5), respectively.
conclusionsScheduled appointments increased screening participation consistently across all target ages and screening centres among women overdue for screening. Participation increased also among women with no previous records of cervical screening.
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.