ArticlePsycho-oncology2018
Decision-making about cervical screening in a heterogeneous sample of nonparticipants: A qualitative interview study.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Autistic People's Experiences of and Attitudes Towards Cervical Screening: A Mixed-Methods Study.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2026Article
- Investigating the acceptability of cervical screening, using conventional clinician-taken cervical samples or urine self-sampling, at 6 weeks postnatal: A cross-sectional questionnaire.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Mammography screening status of women aged 40 and older in eastern Iran using the precaution adoption process model (PAPM).Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Exploring the barriers to cervical screening and perspectives on new self-sampling methods amongst under-served groups.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Article
- Factors associated with cervical screening coverage: a longitudinal analysis of English general practices from 2013 to 2022.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Understanding of Cervical Screening Adoption among Female University Students Based on the Precaution Adoption Process Model and Health-Belief Model.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Translating qualitative data into intervention content using the Theoretical Domains Framework and stakeholder co-design: a worked example from a study of cervical screening attendance in older women.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Decision-making about cervical screening in a heterogeneous sample of nonparticipants: A qualitative interview study.Psycho-oncology · 2018Article
- The experience of under-screened and never-screened participants using clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening within the Australian National Cervical Screening Program.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.