Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30095862›Full record

ArticlePsycho-oncology2018

Decision-making about cervical screening in a heterogeneous sample of nonparticipants: A qualitative interview study.

Laura A V Marlow, Amanda J Chorley, Lauren Rockliffe, Jo Waller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psycho-oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Laura A V MarlowCancer Communication and Screening Group, Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1709-2397
Amanda J ChorleyCancer Communication and Screening Group, Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Lauren RockliffeCancer Communication and Screening Group, Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Jo WallerCancer Communication and Screening Group, Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 17219Cancer Research UK C7492/A17219
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAccording to the precaution adoption process model, cervical screening nonparticipants represent a heterogeneous group including those who are unaware of, unengaged with, or undecided about screening, as well as intenders and decliners. We aimed to explore beliefs about cervical screening among these different types of nonparticipant.

methodsSemistructured interviews were carried out with women aged 26 to 65 years living in Britain (n = 29). Women were purposively sampled to represent different nonparticipant types. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and data were analysed thematically using framework analysis.

resultsThe salience of some barriers to screening varied between different types of nonparticipant. Bad experiences were prominent in the discussions of women who had decided not to attend, while practical barriers were more prominent among intenders. There was also some overlap between nonparticipant types. For example, many of the undecided women described not wanting to go for screening, but with less certainty than decliners. Some intenders (particularly those who had not been screened before) described not really wanting to attend but feeling they ought to. Women's views on the invitation/reminder process also varied; intenders and maintainers appreciated written reminders and general practitioner (GP) prompts but decliners sometimes perceived these as "badgering." Throughout the interviews, women described changing views on screening in the wider context of ageing and motherhood.

conclusionsThe salience of screening barriers varies by nonparticipant type, offering possibilities for tailored interventions. However, the fluidity of women's stage of screening adoption might have implications for this approach to intervention design.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAgedComprehensionDecision MakingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePatient ParticipationQualitative ResearchUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal Smearsbeliefscancercervical screeningdecision-makingoncologyPAPMprecaution adoption process modelqualitativetailoredtheory

Identifiers

PMID30095862
PMCPMC6220875

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.