Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29704009›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of public health2018

Attendance to cervical cancer screening among Roma and non-Roma women living in North-Western region of Romania.

Trude Andreassen, Adriana Melnic, Rejane Figueiredo, Kåre Moen, Ofelia Şuteu, Florian Nicula, Giske Ursin, Elisabete Weiderpass

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Randomized Implementation of a Primary Human Papillomavirus Testing-based Cervical Cancer Screening Protocol for Women 34 to 69 Years in Norway.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  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. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Trude AndreassenCancer Registry of Norway, Institute of Population-Based Cancer Research, Majorstuen, Post-box 5213, 0304, Oslo, Norway. trude.andreassen@kreftregisteret.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6503-5162
Adriana MelnicThe Romanian Cancer Society, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Rejane FigueiredoFolkhälsan Research Center, Genetic Epidemiology Group, Helsinki, Finland.
Kåre MoenInstitute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Ofelia ŞuteuUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy, "Iuliu Haţieganu", Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Florian NiculaInstitute of Oncology "Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuţă" Cluj-Napoca (IOCN), Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Giske UrsinCancer Registry of Norway, Institute of Population-Based Cancer Research, Majorstuen, Post-box 5213, 0304, Oslo, Norway.
Elisabete WeiderpassCancer Registry of Norway, Institute of Population-Based Cancer Research, Majorstuen, Post-box 5213, 0304, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

EEA Grants 6SEE/30.06.2014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRomania has Europe's highest incidence and mortality rates of cervical cancer. Participation in the national cervical cancer-screening programme is low, especially among minority Roma women.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study, using a structured questionnaire aiming to quantify reasons for screening attendance among women in North-Western region of Romania.

results980 women were enrolled in this study. Data were analysed using logistic regression, estimating odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). This study revealed that Roma women (46%) attended screening less frequently that non-Roma women (63%),; however, ethnicity in itself was not associated with screening attendance. Instead we found that attendance to the cervical cancer screening programme was determined by having ever heard about a screening opportunity (OR 5.90, 95% CI 3.76-9.27) and having three or more sex partners (OR 5.99, 95% CI 1.71-21.04).

conclusionsWe concluded that information about the screening programme's existence and its rationale does not reach the women targeted for screening sufficiently and argue that a process of user involvement aiming to build contact, interaction and cooperation between the programme and its potential participants is warranted.

Indexed as

AdultCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerEuropeFemaleHumansIncidenceLogistic ModelsMiddle AgedMinority GroupsOdds RatioRomaniaRomani PeopleSurveys and QuestionnairesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAccess to healthCervical cancer screening attendanceDiscriminationHealth insuranceMinority Roma womenOdds ratio

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.