Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35403444›Full record

ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center

'Exploring the Influence of Social Media Influencers on Intention to Attend Cervical Screening in the UK: Utilising the Theory of Planned Behaviour'.

Naomi Fielden, Patricia Holch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

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

2 authors.

Naomi FieldenDepartment of Psychology, 4467Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK.
Patricia HolchDepartment of Psychology, 4467Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4255-8315

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCervical cancer is 99.8% preventable when detected early; however, uptake of screening in the United Kingdom is at a 20-year low. Recently, a number of social media influencers have video logged about their experiences of cervical screening through narrative communication with their audience. Here we aimed to explore if accessing cervical screening information from a social media influencer can impact the theory of planned behaviour variables and predict intention to attend cervical screening appointments.

designUtilising a cross-sectional design a volunteer sample of 102 UK women (mean age = 28; SD = 3.10; range = 25-35) took part in an online questionnaire study.

resultsHierarchical regression modelling revealed attitude as a significant predictor of intention to attend a cervical screening appointment and that social media influencers affect attitudes of their audience, indirectly influencing intention to attend.

conclusionHealth messages communicated by social media influencers are effective in promoting positive attitudes but not directly influence intention to attend towards cervical screening. Further research should explore influencer impact on attitudes towards this health behaviour with the ultimate aim of increasing attendance and consequently saving lives.

Indexed as

Social MediaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIntentioncervical screeninghealth promotionhealth protective behaviourinfluencerJade Goody effectsocial mediatheory of planned behaviour

Identifiers

PMID35403444
PMCPMC8998370

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.