ArticleBMJ open2019
Examining the information needed for acceptance of deintensified screening programmes: qualitative focus groups about cervical screening in Australia.
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.
- Testing key messages about extending cervical screening intervals.Patient education and counseling · 2022Trial
- 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 · 2025Article
- General practitioners' views and experiences of communicating with older people about cancer screening: a qualitative study.Family practice · 2024Article
- Awareness and knowledge about HPV and primary HPV screening among women in Great Britain: An online population-based survey.Journal of medical screening · 2024Article
- Acceptability and appropriateness of a risk-tailored organised melanoma screening program: Qualitative interviews with key informants.PloS one · 2023Article
- "A lot can happen in five years": Women's attitudes to extending cervical screening intervals.European journal of cancer care · 2022Article
- Assessing Canadian women's preferences for cervical cancer screening: A brief report.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Testing positive for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) at primary HPV cervical screening: A qualitative exploration of women's information needs and preferences for communication of results.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Getting the timing right: Women's views on the best time to announce changes to cancer screening policy recommendations.Preventive medicine reports · 2020Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.