Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34040874›Full record

ArticleHealth psychology and behavioral medicine2020

What factors are most influential in increasing cervical cancer screening attendance? An online study of UK-based women.

Sarah Wilding, Sarah Wighton, Daisy Halligan, Robert West, Mark Conner, Daryl B O'Connor

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health psychology and behavioral medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Barriers to and Facilitators of Cervical Cancer Screening among Women in Southeast Asia: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Sarah WildingSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7977-7132
Sarah WightonNHS England and NHS Improvement (North East & Yorkshire), Leeds, UK.
Daisy HalliganSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Robert WestLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Mark ConnerSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6229-8143
Daryl B O'ConnorSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

barrierCervical cancer screeningdecision makingdecision making in cervical cancer screeningfacilitator

Identifiers

PMID34040874
PMCPMC8114340

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.