Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29129894›Full record

Trial reportJournal of epidemiology2018

Motivating Mothers to Recommend Their 20-Year-Old Daughters Receive Cervical Cancer Screening: A Randomized Study.

Tomomi Egawa-Takata, Yutaka Ueda, Akiko Morimoto, Yusuke Tanaka, Asami Yagi, Yoshito Terai, Masahide Ohmichi, Tomoyuki Ichimura, Toshiyuki Sumi, Hiromi Murata and 18 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

28 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Tomomi Egawa-TakataOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Yutaka UedaOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Akiko MorimotoOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Yusuke TanakaOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Asami YagiOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3222-5963
Yoshito TeraiOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Masahide OhmichiOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Tomoyuki IchimuraOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Toshiyuki SumiOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Hiromi MurataOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Hidetaka OkadaOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Hidekatsu NakaiOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Masaki MandaiOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Shinya MatsuzakiOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Eiji KobayashiOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Kiyoshi YoshinoOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Tadashi KimuraOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Junko SaitoOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Yumiko HoriDepartment of Pathology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine.
Eiichi MoriiDepartment of Pathology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine.
Tomio NakayamaCancer Control Center, Osaka International Cancer Institute.
Mikiko Asai-SatoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine.
Etsuko MiyagiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine.
Masayuki SekineDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences.
Takayuki EnomotoOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Yorihiko HorikoshiOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Tetsu TakagiOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
Kentaro ShimuraOCEAN Study Group (Obstetrical Gynecological Society of Osaka).
The University of Osaka · JPKansai Medical University · JPKindai University · JPNiigata University · JPOsaka City University · JPOsaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University · JPYokohama City University · JPOsaka International Cancer Institute · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Japan, the rate of cervical cancer screening is remarkably low, especially among women in their twenties and thirties, when cervical cancer is now increasing dramatically. The aim of this study was to test whether a modified government reminder for 20-year-old women to engage in cervical cancer screening, acting through maternal education and by asking for a maternal recommendation to the daughter to receive the screening, could increase their participation rate.

methodsIn two Japanese cities, 20-year-old girls who had not received their first cervical cancer screening before October of fiscal year 2014 were randomized into two study arms. One group of 1,274 received only a personalized daughter-directed reminder leaflet for cervical cancer screening. In the second group of 1,274, the daughters and their mothers received a combination package containing the same reminder leaflet as did the first group, plus an additional informational leaflet for the mother, which requested that the mother recommend that her daughter undergo cervical cancer screening. The subsequent post-reminder screening rates of these two study arms were compared.

resultsThe cervical cancer screening rate of 20-year-old women whose mothers received the information leaflet was significantly higher than that for women who received only a leaflet for themselves (11% vs 9%, P = 0.0049).

conclusionsAn intervention with mothers, by sending them a cervical cancer information leaflet with a request that they recommend that their daughter receive cervical cancer screening, significantly improved their daughters' screening rate.

Indexed as

Mother-Child RelationsMotivationEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth PromotionHumansJapanMothersNuclear FamilyPamphletsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung Adultcervical cancer screeningdaughterleafletmotherrecommendation

Identifiers

PMID29129894
PMCPMC5821693
OpenAlexW2767246768

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.