Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35040970›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Assessment of US Preventive Services Task Force Guideline-Concordant Cervical Cancer Screening Rates and Reasons for Underscreening by Age, Race and Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Rurality, and Insurance, 2005 to 2019.

Ryan Suk, Young-Rock Hong, Suja S Rajan, Zhigang Xie, Yenan Zhu, Jennifer C Spencer

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06810427 (A Novel, Low-Cost, Handheld 3D Imaging System for Improved Screening for Cervical Neoplasia in Resource-Limited Settings), which is not on this map. Cited by 121 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
121citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
28.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT06810427 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Novel, Low-Cost, Handheld 3D Imaging System for Improved Screening for Cervical Neoplasia in Resource-Limited Settings

TypeinterventionalSponsorCarilion ClinicRan2025 to 2026Enrolled18ConditionsCervical Intraepithelial NeoplasiaArmsCervImage device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

121 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 187 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Low-cost interventions to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening among emergency department patients: Results of a randomized clinical trial.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Community-based health literacy focused intervention for cervical cancer control among Black women living with human immunodeficiency virus: A randomized pilot trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Racial Differences in Expected Versus Actual Costs of Cervical Cancer Screening among Low-Income, Underscreened Women in North Carolina.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

61 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ryan SukDepartment of Management, Policy, and Community Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health, Houston.
Young-Rock HongDepartment of Health Services Research, Management and Policy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Suja S RajanDepartment of Management, Policy, and Community Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health, Houston.
Zhigang XieDepartment of Health Services Research, Management and Policy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Yenan ZhuDepartment of Management, Policy, and Community Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health, Houston.
Jennifer C SpencerDepartment of Population Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin.
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USThe University of Texas at Austin · USUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of Florida Health · US

Funding

Scientific & Technical CoreP2CHD042849 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI MARK D. HAYWARD · 2017 to 2026
$5.2M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD042849
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Cervical cancer screening rates are suboptimal in the US. Population-based assessment of reasons for not receiving screening is needed, particularly among women from historically underserved demographic groups. Objective: To estimate changes in US Preventive Service Task Force guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening over time and assess the reasons women do not receive up-to-date screening by sociodemographic factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pooled population-based cross-sectional study used data from the US National Health Interview Survey from 2005 and 2019. A total of 20 557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) aged 21 to 65 years without previous hysterectomy were included. Analyses were conducted from March 30 to August 19, 2021. Exposures: Sociodemographic factors, including age, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, rurality of residence, and health insurance type. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were US Preventive Services Task Force guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening rates and self-reported primary reasons for not receiving up-to-date screening. For 2005, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years for women aged 21 to 65 years. For 2019, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou test alone for women aged 21 to 29 years and screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou test alone or every 5 years with high-risk human papillomavirus testing or cotesting for women aged 30 to 65 years. Population estimation included sampling weights. Results: Among 20 557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) included in the study, most were aged 30 to 65 years (16 219 women; weighted, 86.3 million women [76.3%]) and had private insurance (13 571 women; weighted, 75.8 million women [67.0%]). With regard to race and ethnicity, 997 women (weighted, 6.9 million women [6.1%]) were Asian, 3821 women (weighted, 19.5 million women [17.2%]) were Hispanic, 2862 women (weighted, 14.8 million women [13.1%]) were non-Hispanic Black, 12 423 women (weighted, 69.0 million women [61.0%]) were non-Hispanic White, and 453 women (weighted, 3.0 million women [2.7%]) were of other races and/or ethnicities (including Alaska Native and American Indian [weighted, 955 000 women (0.8%)] and other single and multiple races or ethnicities [weighted, 2.0 million women (1.8%)]). In 2019, women aged 21 to 29 years had a significantly higher rate of overdue screening (29.1%) vs women aged 30 to 65 years (21.1%; P < .001). In both age groups, the proportion of women without up-to-date screening increased significantly from 2005 to 2019 (from 14.4% to 23.0%; P < .001). Significantly higher rates of overdue screening were found among those of Asian vs non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity (31.4% vs 20.1%; P = .01), those identifying as LGBQ+ (gender identity was not assessed because of a small sample) vs heterosexual (32.0% vs 22.2%; P < .001), those living in rural vs urban areas (26.2% vs 22.6%; P = .04), and those without insurance vs those with private insurance (41.7% vs 18.1%; P < .001). The most common reason for not receiving timely screening across all groups was lack of knowledge, ranging from 47.2% of women identifying as LGBQ+ to 64.4% of women with Hispanic ethnicity. Previous receipt of a human papillomavirus vaccine was not a primary reason for not having up-to-date screening (<1% of responses). From 2005 to 2019, among women aged 30 to 65 years, lack of access decreased significantly as a primary reason for not receiving screening (from 21.8% to 9.7%), whereas lack of knowledge (from 45.2% to 54.8%) and not receiving recommendations from health care professionals (from 5.9% to 12.0%) increased significantly. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that cervical cancer screening that was concordant with US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines decreased in the US between 2005 and 2019, with lack of knowledge reported as the biggest barrier to receiving timely screening. Campaigns addressing patient knowledge and provider communication may help to improve screening rates, and cultural adaptation of interventions is needed to reduce existing disparities.

Indexed as

AdultAdvisory CommitteesAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerEthnicityFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHispanic or LatinoHumansInsurance, HealthMiddle AgedPapanicolaou TestPatient Acceptance of Health CarePreventive Health ServicesRacial Groups

Identifiers

PMID35040970
PMCPMC8767443
OpenAlexW4205267628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.