ArticleBMJ open2019
Impact of family physicians on cervical cancer screening: cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey in a region of southern Poland.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare professionals' communication practices and preparedness in organised human papillomavirus-based cervical Cancer screening: A cross-sectional study in Central Portugal.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Development of a Culturally Sensitive Intervention for Cervical Cancer Screening Promotion for Latinx Transgender Individuals.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Associations between the signing status of family doctor contract services and cervical cancer screening behaviors: a cross-sectional study in Shenzhen, China.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Beliefs and Utilization of Cervical Cancer Screening by Female Health Care Workers in Saudi Arabia Using the Health Belief Model: A Nationwide Study.International journal of women's health · 2023Article
- Barriers and attitudes towards cervical cancer screening in primary healthcare in Poland - doctors' perspective.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- A Step towards Understanding and Tackling Health Inequalities: The Use of Secondary Prevention Services and the Need for Health Promotion in a Rural Setting.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite worldwide efforts in encouraging routine pap smears for early detection of cervical cancer, Poland's screening rate lags behind the rest of the European Union at 20.2%. Family physicians (FPs) in Poland rarely perform pap smears, and little is known about the experiences and attitudes of Polish patients regarding pap smear screening in a primary healthcare (PHC) setting.
methodsA cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey was performed. Questionnaires were distributed among 43 FPs and 418 of their patients in one Polish region. The data from patients were associated with the doctors' characteristics. Descriptive statistics, the χ
resultsNearly two-thirds of patients (66%) declared willingness to undergo free pap smear screening by their FPs, with the most common reason being time saved. Among those objecting to receive pap smears from their FPs, immediate specialist care provided by gynaecologists in case of adverse results was the main concern. The factors that positively influenced the patients' decision to undergo cervical cancer screening in PHC were: (1) living in a city with more than 100 000 inhabitants, (2) being single, (3) having a female FP or (4) a physician with specialty training in family medicine.
conclusionThere is high level of acceptance for pap smears performed in PHC offices among patients in Poland. They are more likely to comply with the screening due to easy access. Establishing a solid physician-patient relationship is also crucial in encouraging 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.