ArticleBMJ open2019
Could changing invitation and booking processes help women translate their cervical screening intentions into action? A population-based survey of women's preferences in Great Britain.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. 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.
- How do young women approaching screening age interpret the NHS cervical screening leaflet? A mixed methods study of identifying interpretation difficulties, barriers, facilitators, and leaflet interpretation, engagement and future screening behaviour.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2024Article
- The Positive Effect of an Online Appointment Portal on a Breast Cancer Screening Program.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- Barriers to and Facilitators of Automated Patient Self-scheduling for Health Care Organizations: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to Automated Self-Scheduling: Consensus from a Delphi Panel of Key Stakeholders.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2022Article
- Bioinformatic Analyzes of the Association Between Upregulated Expression ofFrontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Young Danish HPV vaccinated women's knowledge, barriers and facilitators towards cervical cancer screening: A qualitative study.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- What factors are most influential in increasing cervical cancer screening attendance? An online study of UK-based women.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2020Article
- Offering an app to book cervical screening appointments: A service evaluation.Journal of medical screening · 2020Article
- Perceived Deterrence Towards Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening among Northern Malaysia Population: A Qualitative Study.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2020Article
- Adherence to triage among women with HPV-positive self-collection: a study in a middle-low income population in Argentina.Ecancermedicalscience · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMany women who do not attend screening intend to go, but do not get around to booking an appointment. Qualitative work suggests that these 'intenders' face more practical barriers to screening than women who are up-to-date ('maintainers'). This study explored practical barriers to booking a screening appointment and preferences for alternative invitation and booking methods that might overcome these barriers.
designA cross-sectional survey was employed.
settingGreat Britain.
participantsWomen aged 25-64, living in Great Britain who intended to be screened but were overdue ('intenders', n=255) and women who were up-to-date with screening ('maintainers', n=359).
results'Intenders' reported slightly more barriers than 'maintainers' overall (mean=1.36 vs 1.06, t=3.03, p<0.01) and were more likely to think they might forget to book an appointment (OR=2.87, 95% CI: 2.01 to 4.09). Over half of women said they would book on a website using a smartphone (62%), a computer (58%) or via an app (52%). Older women and women from lower social grades were less likely to say they would use online booking methods (all ps <0.05). Women who reported two or more barriers were more likely to say they would use online booking than women who reported none (ps <0.01).
conclusionsWomen who are overdue for screening face practical barriers to booking appointments. Future interventions may assess the efficacy of changing the architecture of the invitation and booking system. This may help women overcome logistical barriers to participation and increase coverage for cervical screening.
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.