ArticleJournal of medical screening2021
Maximising the acceptability of extended time intervals between screens in the NHS Cervical Screening Programme: An online experimental study.
Article in Journal of medical screening, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of age-relevant and generic infographics on knowledge, attitudes and intention to attend cervical screening: A randomized controlled trial.British journal of health psychology · 2024Trial
- Testing key messages about extending cervical screening intervals.Patient education and counseling · 2022Trial
- Transitioning from Cytology to HPV Test-Based Primary Cervical Screening in Canada: A Population-Based Survey of Women's Screening and Information Preferences.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening: Patient Perspectives on Transitioning to Primary High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing Alone.The Permanente journal · 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
- Risk factors of LEEP margin positivity and optimal length of cervical conization in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- "A lot can happen in five years": Women's attitudes to extending cervical screening intervals.European journal of cancer care · 2022Article
- Acceptability of extending HPV-based cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years: an interview study with women in England.BMJ open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe NHS Cervical Screening Programme plans to increase the screening interval from 3 to 5 years for women aged 25-49 who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV). This exploratory cross-sectional online survey tested the impact of different levels of information about the proposed change on acceptability of a longer interval.
methodsWomen aged 18-45 (n = 585) were individually randomised to one of three information exposure groups differing in the level of information provided about the screening interval change: (1) basic information; (2) basic information with additional detail about timeline of HPV infection; (3) as (2) but with the addition of a diagram. Acceptability of the change (
resultsWomen in Group 3 had higher scores on the
conclusionsOverall, acceptability of an increased screening interval was moderate, but providing women with information about the safety and rationale for this change may improve acceptability. In particular, communicating the long timeline from HPV exposure to cervical cancer may reassure women about the safety of the proposed changes.
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.