Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28535495›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)2017

Understanding the heterogeneity of cervical cancer screening non-participants: Data from a national sample of British women.

Laura A V Marlow, Amanda J Chorley, Jessica Haddrell, Rebecca Ferrer, Jo Waller

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The Use of First-Void Urine to Screen Women Aged 60-79 for HPV in the UK: The Catch-Up Screen Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Why do people choose not to take part in screening? Qualitative interview study of atrial fibrillation screening nonparticipation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    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.

Laura A V MarlowCancer Communication & Screening Group, Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, UCL, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. Electronic address: l.marlow@ucl.ac.uk.
Amanda J ChorleyCancer Communication & Screening Group, Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, UCL, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Jessica HaddrellCancer Communication & Screening Group, Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, UCL, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Rebecca FerrerBasic Biobehavioral and Psychological Sciences Branch, Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Jo WallerCancer Communication & Screening Group, Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, UCL, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 17219Cancer Research UK C7492/A17219
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUptake of cervical cancer screening in the United Kingdom (UK) is falling year on year, and a more sophisticated understanding of non-participation may help design interventions to reverse this trend. This study ascertained the prevalence of different non-participant types using the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM).

methodsHome-based computer-assisted interviews were carried out with 3113 screening-eligible women in Britain. Survey items assessed self-reported screening uptake and intention to attend in future. Responses to these items were used to classify women into one of five different types of non-participants.

resultsOf 793 non-participants, 28% were unaware of screening, 15% had decided not to attend and 51% were intending to have screening but were currently overdue. Younger women were more likely to be unaware of screening or to intend to be screened, while older women were more likely to have decided not to be screened. Women from ethnic minority backgrounds were more likely to be unaware of screening than white women. Being in a lower social grade was associated with increased odds of all three types of non-participation.

conclusionThe majority of cervical cancer screening non-participants are not making an active decision not to attend but rather are either unaware or unable to act. There are clear sociodemographic differences between non-participant types, which could be used to identify where tailored interventions may be best targeted.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareSocioeconomic FactorsUnited KingdomUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsAgeCervical cancer screeningInequalitiesIntentionInterventionsPAPMReadinessStagesUptake

Identifiers

PMID28535495
PMCPMC5489076

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.