Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29595751›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP)2019

How does information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening alter the intention to be screened?: a randomized survey of Norwegian women.

Anita L Iyer, M Kate Bundorf, Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert, Pascale-Renée Cyr, Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Anita L IyerDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
M Kate BundorfDepartment of Health Research and Policy.
Dorte Gyrd-HansenDepartment of Business and Economics, COHERE - Center for Health Economic Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark.
Jeremy D Goldhaber-FiebertDepartment of Medicine, Center for Health Policy and Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford Health Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Pascale-Renée CyrDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Ivar Sønbø KristiansenDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

Cost-effective chronic disease prevention in developing countriesK01AG037593 · NIA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GOLDHABER-FIEBERT, JEREMY DAVID · 2011 to 2015
$637k
NIA NIH HHS K01 AG037593
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cervical cancer (CC) is the 13th most frequent cancer among women in Norway, but the third most common among women aged 25-49 years. The national screening program sends information letters to promote screening participation. We aimed to evaluate how women's stated intention to participate in screening and pursue treatment changed with the provision of additional information on harms associated with screening, and to assess women's preferences on the timing and source of such information. We administered a web-based questionnaire to a panel of Norwegian women aged 25-69 years and randomized into three groups on the basis of when in the screening process additional information was introduced: (i) invited for routine screening, (ii) recommended an additional test following detection of cellular abnormalities, and (iii) recommended precancer treatment. A fourth (control) group did not receive any additional information. Results show that among 1060 respondents, additional information did not significantly alter women's stated intentions to screen. However, it created decision uncertainty on when treatment was recommended (8.76-9.09 vs. 9.40; 10-point Likert scale; P=0.004). Over 80% of women favored receiving information on harms and 59% preferred that information come from a qualified public health authority. Nearly 90% of women in all groups overestimated women's lifetime risk of CC. In conclusion, additional information on harms did not alter Norwegian women's stated intention to screen for CC; yet, it resulted in greater decision uncertainty to undergo precancer treatment. Incorporating information on harms into invitation letters is warranted as it would increase women's ability to make informed choices.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeIntentionAdultAgedEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedNorwayPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrognosisSurveys and QuestionnairesUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29595751
PMCPMC6160367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.