Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31630103›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Examining the information needed for acceptance of deintensified screening programmes: qualitative focus groups about cervical screening in Australia.

Rachael H Dodd, Brooke Nickel, Sally Wortley, Carissa Bonner, Jolyn Hersch, Kirsten J McCaffery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. Trial
  2. The sexual and reproductive health knowledge of women in Australia: A scoping review.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    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

6 authors.

Rachael H DoddFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia rachael.dodd@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-8080-6359
Brooke NickelFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8100-4278
Sally WortleyFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2519-2582
Carissa BonnerFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4797-6460
Jolyn HerschFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5225-6639
Kirsten J McCafferyFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2696-5006

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesGiven the changing understanding of overdiagnosis of screen detected cancers and advances in technology to detect and prevent cancer, updating and scaling back cancer screening programmes is becoming increasingly necessary. The National Cervical Screening Programme (NCSP) in Australia was recently deintensified, with the changes implemented in December 2017. This study examines women's understanding and acceptance of the renewed screening protocol and how such changes can be communicated more effectively.

designFocus groups structured around a presentation of information about the renewed NCSP, with discussions of the information facilitated throughout. Qualitative data analysis was conducted.

settingAustralia

participantsSix focus groups were conducted in November 2017 with a community sample of 49 women aged 18-74.

resultsWomen demonstrated little or no awareness of the upcoming screening changes in the period just before they occurred. Women expressed most concern and fear that the increased screening interval (from 2 to 5 years) and later age of first screening (from age 18 to 25 years) could lead to missing cancers. Concerns about exit testing were less common. Understanding of the natural history and the prevalence of both human papillomavirus and cervical cancer, and the nature of the new test (catching it 'earlier') was key to alleviate concerns about the increased screening interval.

conclusionsDeintensifying screening programmes should be accompanied by clear and coherent communication of the changes, including the rationale behind them, to limit concerns from the public and facilitate acceptance of renewed programmes. In this case, understanding the biology of cervical cancer was crucial.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedAustraliaFemaleFocus GroupsHealth PolicyHumansMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsPublic OpinionUterine Cervical NeoplasmsWomen's Healthcervical screeningdeintensificationinformation needsqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID31630103
PMCPMC6803149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.