ArticleBMJ open2019
Perspectives of non-attenders for cervical cancer screening in Norway: a qualitative focus group study.
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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sociocultural factors influencing women's adherence to colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- HPV self-sampling among long-term non-attenders to cervical cancer screening in Norway: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.British journal of cancer · 2022Trial
- Lack of Awareness, Body Confidence and Connotations of Sex: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Barriers Affecting the Decision to Attend Initial Cervical Cancer Screening.The journal of behavioral health services & research · 2023Article
- Unpacking the Lay Epidemiology of Cervical Cancer: A Focus Group Study on the Perceptions of Cervical Cancer and Its Prevention among Women Late for Screening in Norway.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Future of Cervical Cancer Prevention: From "One-Size-Fits-All" to Personalized Screening.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Impact of the Mobile Game FightHPV on Cervical Cancer Screening Attendance: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR serious games · 2022Article
- Cervical cancer screening compliance among active duty service members in the US military.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Young Danish HPV vaccinated women's knowledge, barriers and facilitators towards cervical cancer screening: A qualitative study.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Perceptions of cervical cancer prevention among a group of ethnic minority women in Denmark-A qualitative study.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe attendance rate for cervical cancer screening in Norway is currently suboptimal at 69%, and an in-depth understanding of postponement of cervical cancer screening from the perspective of non-attenders is lacking. This study aims to generate knowledge about how non-attenders for cervical cancer screening reflect on booking a screening appointment.
methodsUsing the Norwegian cervical cancer screening registry, we identified and recruited women who were non-attenders to screening. Nine focus group interviews were carried out, with 41 women participating in the interviews.
resultsFour main themes were generated, which provide a comprehensive understanding of how women who are overdue for screening reflect on their hesitancy to book a screening appointment: 'It's easy to forget about it', 'Women have to arrange their own appointment', 'It has to be a 'must'' and 'It's a humiliating situation'.
conclusionThe degree to which women regard screening as important is affected by the nudging strategies employed in the screening programme and the facilitation of attendance provided by healthcare services. Dependence on one's personal initiative to schedule a screening appointment and perception of a lack of responsibility on the part of healthcare services to attend screening may undermine informed and shared decision-making about screening attendance.
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.