Trial reportBMJ open2017
Stepwise strategy to improve Cervical Cancer Screening Adherence (SCAN-CC): automated text messages, phone calls and face-to-face interviews: protocol of a population-based randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03122275 (Stepwise Strategy to Improve Cervical Cancer Screening Adherence), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Stepwise Strategy to Improve Cervical Cancer Screening Adherence (SCAN-CC): Automatic Text Messages, Phone Calls and Face-to-face Interviews
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interventions supporting long term adherence and decreasing cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction (ISLAND): pragmatic randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Trial
- Factors Affecting Engagement in Screening Clinics; Exploring the Experiences of Patients with Rare Endocrine Gene Disorders.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of a culturally tailored text messaging program for promoting cervical cancer screening in accra, Ghana: a quasi-experimental trial.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Development of a cervical cancer prevention text-messaging program for women living with HIV.Health education research · 2023Article
- Cervical cancer screening patterns among HIV-positive women in Estonia: a population-based retrospective cohort study.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening Programs in Europe: The Transition Towards HPV Vaccination and Population-Based HPV Testing.Viruses · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionScreening is highly effective for cervical cancer prevention and control. Population-based screening programmes are widely implemented in high-income countries, although adherence is often low. In Portugal, just over half of the women adhere to cervical cancer screening, contributing for greater mortality rates than in other European countries. The most effective adherence raising strategies are based on patient reminders, small/mass media and face-to-face educational programmes, but sequential interventions targeting the general population have seldom been evaluated. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of a stepwise approach, with increasing complexity and cost, to improve adherence to organised cervical cancer screening: step 1a-customised text message invitation; step 1b-customised automated phone call invitation; step 2-secretary phone call; step 3-family health professional phone call and face-to-face appointment.
methodsA population-based randomised controlled trial will be implemented in Portuguese urban and rural areas. Women eligible for cervical cancer screening will be randomised (1:1) to intervention and control. In the intervention group, women will be invited for screening through text messages, automated phone calls, manual phone calls and health professional appointments, to be applied sequentially to participants remaining non-adherent after each step. Control will be the standard of care (written letter). The primary outcome is the proportion of women adherent to screening after step 1 or sequences of steps from 1 to 3. The secondary outcomes are: proportion of women screened after each step (1a, 2 and 3); proportion of text messages/phone calls delivered; proportion of women previously screened in a private health institution who change to organised screening. The intervention and control groups will be compared based on intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Northern Health Region Administration and National Data Protection Committee. Results will be disseminated through communications in scientific meetings and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL NUMBER: NCT03122275.
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.