Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34001539›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2021

Attitudes of transgender men and non-binary people to cervical screening: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study in the UK.

Alison M Berner, Dean J Connolly, Imogen Pinnell, Aedan Wolton, Adriana MacNaughton, Chloe Challen, Kate Nambiar, Jacob Bayliss, James Barrett, Christina Richards

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 34 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Transphobia in the United Kingdom: a public health crisis.International journal for equity in health · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Recommendations for a Communication Strategy to Support Informed Decision-Making About Self or Clinician Sampling for Cervical Screening in the UK: Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Alison M BernerCentre for Genomics and Computational Biology, Queen Mary University of London; specialty doctor in gender identity medicine, Gender Identity Clinic, Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, London.
Dean J ConnollyGeriatric Medicine, Whipps Cross University Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust; visiting researcher, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London.
Imogen PinnellJo's Cervical Cancer Trust, London.
Aedan WoltonChelsea and Westminster Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London.
Adriana MacNaughtonJo's Cervical Cancer Trust, London.
Chloe ChallenImperial College London, London.
Kate NambiarGender Identity Clinic, Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, London; specialty doctor in sexual health and HIV medicine, Department of Sexual Health, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton.
Jacob BaylissBrighton and Hove LGBT Switchboard, Brighton.
James BarrettGender Identity Clinic, Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, London.
Christina RichardsGender Identity Clinic, Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, London.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransgender men and non-binary people assigned female at birth (TMNB) who have not had surgery to remove the cervix are recommended to undertake cervical screening with the same frequency as cisgender women, but evidence suggests that TMNB have lower odds of lifetime and up-to-date cervical screening uptake.

aimTo understand the attitudes towards and preferences for cervical screening among UK-based TMNB. DESIGN AND

settingCross-sectional survey of TMNB at an NHS gender identity clinic (GIC) and an NHS sexual health service specialising in care of transgender people.

methodRecruitment was via email invitations to patients of the GIC and sexual health service. Inclusion criteria were: female sex assigned at birth; transgender man, masculine, or non-binary gender identity; aged ≥18 years; and UK resident. Quantitative results were analysed using descriptive statistics, and free-text comments were analysed thematically.

resultsIn total there were 137 participants; 80% identified as transmasculine,18% as non-binary, and the remaining participants reported other noncisgender identities. Sixty-four participants (47%) were eligible for cervical screening and 37 (58%) of those had been screened. Only 34 (53%) of those eligible felt they had sufficient information about cervical screening. Just over half (

conclusionTMNB have identified numerous potential areas for change that may improve cervical screening uptake and patient experience.

Indexed as

Transgender PersonsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdolescentAdultAttitudeCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGender IdentityHumansMaleUnited Kingdomcervical cancergender identityprimary health carescreeningsexual healthtransgender

Identifiers

PMID34001539
PMCPMC8136582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.