Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32457182›Full record

SynthesisCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2020

Variation in Cervical Cancer Screening Preferences among Medically Underserved Individuals in the United States: A Systematic Review.

Caitlin B Biddell, Meghan C O'Leary, Stephanie B Wheeler, Lisa P Spees

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Caitlin B BiddellDepartment of Health Policy & Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. cbiddell@live.unc.edu.
Meghan C O'LearyDepartment of Health Policy & Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Stephanie B WheelerDepartment of Health Policy & Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Lisa P SpeesDepartment of Health Policy & Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0002-5680-9330
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Center for Health Promotion and Disease PreventionU48DP005017 · DP · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI AMMERMAN, ALICE S, WHEELER, STEPHANIE BROOKE · 2014 to 2018
$10.9M
Cancer Care Quality Training ProgramT32CA116339 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ETHAN M. BASCH, Stephanie Brooke Wheeler · 2018 to 2026
$3.0M
Big Data to Knowledge Training ProgramT32LM012420 · NLM · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI FOREST, MARK GREGORY, KOSOROK, MICHAEL R · 2016 to 2019
$1.1M
ACL HHS U48DP005017NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005017NCI NIH HHS T32 CA116339NLM NIH HHS T32 LM012420
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Underutilization of effective screening is one driver of disparities in cervical cancer incidence and mortality. Consideration of patient preferences could help to improve screening rates in populations facing substantial barriers to preventive care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on cervical cancer screening preferences among medically underserved patients in the United States. We searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) for articles published through February 2019 (Prospero ID: CRD42019125431). Among the 43 articles included, 23 reported screening modality preferences, 11 reported preferences related to provider demographics and attributes, six reported screening scheduling and results delivery preferences, and nine reported preferences related to health education and communication. This review demonstrates the wide variety of medically underserved patient preferences related to cervical cancer screening. It also draws attention to two key preference trends that emerged despite heterogeneity in study design, populations, and preference assessment. Consistent preferences for human papillomavirus self-testing over traditional Pap testing highlight a key potential mechanism for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake among medically underserved populations. In addition, preferences for gender- and language-concordant providers underscore the need for continued efforts toward expanding diversity among medical professionals.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansMass ScreeningMedically Underserved AreaUnited StatesUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32457182
PMCPMC7415615
OpenAlexW3030657574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.