Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34486436›Full record

ArticleJournal of primary care & community health

Learning From Cervical Cancer Survivors: An Examination of Barriers and Facilitators to Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women in the United States.

Virginia Senkomago, April Greek, J Elizabeth Jackson, Cheryll C Thomas, Lisa C Richardson, Vicki B Benard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Virginia SenkomagoCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9291-8016
April GreekBattelle, Seattle, WA, USA.
J Elizabeth JacksonBattelle, Seattle, WA, USA.
Cheryll C ThomasCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Lisa C RichardsonCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Vicki B BenardCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

MICHIGAN CANCER PREVENTION & CONTROL PROGRAMU58DP003921 · DP · MICHIGAN STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES · PI BROOKOVER, PATRICIA · 2012 to 2014
$30.7M
CANCER PREVENTION & CONTROL PROGRAM FOR STATE, TERRITORIAL & TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONSU58DP003915 · DP · LSU HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER · PI WILLIAMS, DONNA L. · 2012 to 2014
$8.9M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP003915NCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP003921NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201300016CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201300016INCI NIH HHS HHSN261201300021C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening and timely follow-up have lowered cervical cancer incidence in the US; however, screening coverage, incidence, and death rates have remained fairly stable in recent years. Studies suggest that half of women diagnosed with cervical cancer don't receive appropriate screening prior to diagnosis; cervical cancer survivors can provide crucial insight into barriers and facilitators to screening.

methodsParticipants were cervical cancer survivors ≥21 years, identified through population-based central cancer registries (CR) in 3 US states or a social network (SN), Cervivor. CR participants completed a mailed survey on screening history, barriers, and facilitators to screening and sociodemographic data. SN participants completed the same survey online.

resultsCR participants (N = 480) were older, with a lower proportion of non-Hispanic white, married, and insured women compared to SN participants (N = 148). Fifty percent of CR and 79% of SN participants were screened 5 years prior to their diagnoses. Of those screened, 28% in both groups reported not following-up on abnormal results. For both groups, the most frequently identified screening barrier was that participants never imagined they would develop cervical cancer (percent agree CR = 76%; SN = 86%), and the facilitator was wanting to take care of their bodies (CR = 95%; SN = 94%).

conclusionAddressing key barriers to obtaining screening and timely follow-up related to lack of knowledge of cervical cancer risk and screening tests and addressing insurance coverage in the design or modification of interventions may increase cervical cancer screening and lower cervical cancer incidence in the US.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Statesbarrierscancer registriescervical cancer screeningcervical cancer survivorsfacilitators

Identifiers

PMID34486436
PMCPMC8424614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.