Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35312891›Full record

Trial reportCancer causes & control : CCC2022

Impact of an educational tool on young women's knowledge of cervical cancer screening recommendations.

Heike Thiel de Bocanegra, Christine Dehlendorf, Miriam Kuppermann, Sitaram S Vangala, Anna-Barbara Moscicki

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Can ChatGPT Provide Patient-Friendly and Reliable Information on Cervical Cancer Screening? A Study of ChatGPT-Generated Information in Polish.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Heike Thiel de BocanegraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, 333 City Boulevard West, Suite 1400, Orange, CA, 92868, USA. hthiel@hs.uci.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9235-7151
Christine DehlendorfDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Miriam KuppermannDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Sitaram S VangalaDepartment of Medicine Statistics Core, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA.
Anna-Barbara MoscickiDepartment of Pediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of California, Irvine · US

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute 1304-6551
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCurrent cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend 3-year screening intervals, in contrast to the previous recommendation of annual screening, to prevent over screening and overtreatment. We evaluated the impact of viewing a tablet-based educational tool prior to seeing a clinician on young women's knowledge and understanding of cervical cancer screening, HPV vaccination follow-up of abnormal pap smears, and comfort in communicating with their providers.

methodsThis cross-sectional study was part of a cluster-randomized study of fourteen primary care clinics from January 2015 to December 2016. We developed the cervical cancer education tool in English and Spanish using a community-based approach that included formative work and cognitive interviewing. Clinics were randomized to use the intervention (tablet-based patient education tool) or to participate as a control group. We administered surveys to a convenience sample of 229 English- or Spanish-speaking women aged 19 to 35 years in these clinics. We used descriptive analyses and logistic regression models with cluster-robust standard errors to compare differences among the two groups.

resultsCompared to women seen in control clinics, women seen in intervention clinics demonstrated greater knowledge regarding human papilloma virus (HPV (p = 0.004) and understanding (p < 0.001) of cervical cancer screening. Comfort in communicating with providers was not statistically different (p = 0.053). Women in the intervention group felt that the tool helped them understand that an abnormal Pap smear does not require immediate treatment (61.5%).

conclusionInnovative online patient education that is offered prior to patients' interaction with their clinicians can improve their knowledge about cervical cancer prevention and treatment.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMass ScreeningPapanicolaou TestPapillomaviridaeSurveys and QuestionnairesVaginal SmearsCancer preventionCervical cancerCervical cytology testingHPV vaccineOnline patient education

Identifiers

PMID35312891
PMCPMC9085671
OpenAlexW4221002247

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.