Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29876723›Full record

ArticleThe journal of primary prevention2018

Correlates of Cervical Cancer Screening Adherence Among Women in the U.S.: Findings from HINTS 2013-2014.

John S Luque, Yelena N Tarasenko, Chen Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of primary prevention, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Trends and Racial/Ethnic Differences in Predictors of Cervical Cancer Screening among US Women Ages 30-64 Years.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

3 authors.

John S LuqueInstitute of Public Health, Florida A&M University, 1515 South MLK Blvd., Ste. 207B, Tallahassee, FL, 32307, USA. john.luque@famu.edu.
Yelena N TarasenkoDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA.
Chen ChenCollege of Nursing and Health Professions, University of Southern Indiana, Evansville, IN, USA.

Funding

Translational Science Laboratory Shared ResourceP30CA138313 · NCI · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI Jian Ouyang · 2009 to 2026
$42.7M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA138313
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following the latest update of cervical cancer screening guidelines in 2012, we estimate the prevalence of guideline adherent cervical cancer screening and examine its associated factors among a nationally representative sample of US women aged 21-65 years. Our study was based on cross-sectional data from Cycles 3 (2013) and 4 (2014) of the Health Information National Trends Survey. The final analytic sample consisted of 2822 women. Guideline adherent cervical cancer screening was defined as having a Pap test within the last 3 years. Correlates of guideline adherent cervical cancer screening included socio-demographic and health-related characteristics and HPV/cervical cancer-related beliefs and knowledge items. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to estimate prevalence of guideline adherent screening. An estimated 81.3% of women aged 21-65 years reported being screened for cervical cancer within the last 3 years. Controlling for sociodemographic and health-related characteristics and survey year, women aged 46-65 years were less likely to be guideline adherent than those aged 21-30 years (aPR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.82-0.97). The adjusted prevalence of adherence was significantly higher among married/partnered than among not married women (aPR = 1.13; 95% CI 1.05-1.22), and those with one to three medical visits (aPR = 1.30; 95% CI 1.14-1.48), and four or more visits in the past year (aPR = 1.26; 95% CI 1.09-1.45) compared to those with no medical visits. Differences in unadjusted prevalence of guideline adherent screening depending on women's beliefs and knowledge about HPV and cervical cancer were not significant in adjusted analyses. Lack of interaction with a healthcare provider, being not married/partnered and increasing age continue to be risk factors of foregoing guideline adherent cervical cancer screening.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAge FactorsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansLogistic ModelsMarital StatusMiddle AgedPapanicolaou TestPatient ComplianceRisk FactorsUnited StatesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCancer screeningCervical cancerPap test

Identifiers

PMID29876723
PMCPMC10878428

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.