ArticleBMJ open2017
Talking about human papillomavirus and cancer: development of consultation guides through lay and professional stakeholder coproduction using qualitative, quantitative and secondary data.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A qualitative interview study of GPs' experiences of prescribing opioid medication for chronic pain.BJGP open · 2022Article
- Challenges and controversies patients and (health care) professionals experience in managing vaginal, vulvar, penile or anal cancer: The SILENCE study.European journal of cancer care · 2022Article
- Visual Analysis on Information Theory and Science of Complexity Approaches in Healthcare Research.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- The changing landscape of head and neck cancer radiotherapy patients: is high-risk, prolonged feeding tube use indicative of on-treatment weight loss?Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2019Article
- Primary Care Provider Practices and Perceptions Regarding HPV Vaccination and Anal Cancer Screening at a Boston Community Health Center.Journal of community health · 2018Article
- Recognizing Gynecological Cancer in Primary Care: Risk Factors, Red Flags, and Referrals.Advances in therapy · 2018Article
- Enhancing User Experience Through User Study: Design of an mHealth Tool for Self-Management and Care Engagement of Cardiovascular Disease Patients.JMIR cardio · 2018Article
- Application of a Health Literacy Framework to Explore Patients' Knowledge of the Link between HPV and Cancer.Journal of health communication · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHigh-risk human papillomaviruses (HPVs) cause all cervical cancer and the majority of vulvar, vaginal, anal, penile and oropharyngeal cancers. Although HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection, public awareness of this is poor. In addition, many clinicians lack adequate knowledge or confidence to discuss sexual transmission and related sensitive issues. Complex science needs to be communicated in a clear, digestible, honest and salient way. Therefore, the aim of this study was to coproduce with patients who have cancer appropriate resources to guide these highly sensitive and difficult consultations.
methodsA matrix of evidence developed from a variety of sources, including a systematic review and telephone interviews with clinicians, supported the production of a draft list of approximately 100 potential educational messages. These were refined in face-to-face patient interviews using card-sorting techniques, and tested in cognitive debrief interviews to produce a ‘fast and frugal’ knowledge tool.
resultsWe developed three versions of a consultation guide, each comprising a clinician guidance sheet and patient information leaflet for gynaecological (cervical, vaginal, vulvar), anal or oropharyngeal cancers. That cancer could be caused by a sexually transmitted virus acquired many years previously was surprising to many and shocking to a few patients. However, they found the information clear, helpful and reassuring. Clinicians acknowledged a lack of confidence in explaining HPV, welcomed the clinician guidance sheets and considered printed information for patients particularly useful.
conclusionBecause of the ‘shock factor’, clinicians will need to approach the discussion of HPV with sensitivity and take individual needs and preferences into account, but we provide a novel, rigorously developed and tested resource which should have broad applicability in the UK National Health Service and other health systems.
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.