ArticlePreventive medicine reports2020
Getting the timing right: Women's views on the best time to announce changes to cancer screening policy recommendations.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing key messages about extending cervical screening intervals.Patient education and counseling · 2022Trial
- 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
- Ensuring a Successful Transition From Cytology to Human Papillomavirus-Based Primary Cervical Cancer Screening in Canada by Investigating the Psychosocial Correlates of Women's Intentions: Protocol for an Observational Study.JMIR research protocols · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) changed from 2-yearly cervical cytology to 5-yearly primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, starting at age 25 and with an exit test when aged 70-74. Women showed limited awareness of these changes prior to their implementation. We explored women's preferences for how similar cancer screening changes could be communicated to the public in the future, including when, how, and using what methods. Six focus groups including 49 women aged 18-74 were conducted in November 2017. Focus groups were guided by information available on the NCSP website and information developed by the researchers. Generally, women suggested that communication of changes to cancer screening programs would ideally occur between 6 and 12 months ahead of their implementation and that they would like the opportunity to be involved in consultation about the changes. The NCSP website was described as answering basic questions, but also raising further questions for which there were no answers provided. Most groups preferred information which included evidence behind the changes and wanted an option of more information. Similar suggestions were made across all focus groups about how communications could be delivered, with recognition that the mode of delivery should differ by age. Women were still seeking information about the test itself and a symptom list, in order to be aware of these over the five-year period. These findings make an important and timely contribution which could help inform other countries considering making changes to their cancer screening programs in the future.
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.