Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34221852›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2021

Providing more balanced information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening: A randomized survey among US and Norwegian women.

P R Cyr, K Pedersen, A L Iyer, M K Bundorf, J D Goldhaber-Fiebert, D Gyrd-Hansen, I S Kristiansen, E A Burger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

P R CyrDepartment of Global Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1039 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway.
K PedersenDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1039 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway.
A L IyerDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1039 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway.
M K BundorfStanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 and NBER, United States.
J D Goldhaber-FiebertCenters for Health Policy and Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford Health Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
D Gyrd-HansenDanish Centre for Health Economic, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 9B, 1 Floor, 5000, Odense C, Denmark.
I S KristiansenDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1039 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway.
E A BurgerDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1039 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to identify how additional information about benefits and harms of cervical cancer (CC) screening impacted intention to participate in screening, what type of information on harms women preferred receiving, from whom, and whether it differed between two national healthcare settings. We conducted a survey that randomized screen-eligible women in the United States (n = 1084) and Norway (n = 1060) into four groups according to the timing of introducing additional information. We found that additional information did not significantly impact stated intentions-to-participate in screening or follow-up testing in either country; however, the proportion of Norwegian women stating uncertainty about seeking precancer treatment increased from 7.9% to 14.3% (p = 0.012). Women reported strong system-specific preferences for sources of information: Norwegians (59%) preferred it come from a national public health agency while Americans (59%) preferred it come from a specialist care provider. Regression models revealed having a prior Pap-test was the most important predictor of intentions-to-participate in both countries, while having lower income reduced the probabilities of intentions-to-follow-up and seek precancer treatment among U.S. women. These results suggest that additional information on harms is unlikely to reduce participation in CC screening but could increase decision uncertainty to seek treatment. Providing unbiased information would improve on the ethical principle of respect for autonomy and self-determination. However, the clinical impact of additional information on women's understanding of the trade-offs involved with CC screening should be investigated. Future studies should also consider country-specific socioeconomic barriers to screening if communication re-design initiatives aim to improve CC screening participation.

Indexed as

Cancer screeningCervical cancerInformed decision-makingPatient educationRisk informationScreening participation

Identifiers

PMID34221852
PMCPMC8242055

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.