Trial reportPatient education and counseling2022
Testing key messages about extending cervical screening intervals.
Trial report in Patient education and counseling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed-methods systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Transitioning from Cytology to HPV Test-Based Primary Cervical Screening in Canada: A Population-Based Survey of Women's Screening and Information Preferences.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Attitudes towards being offered a choice of self-sampling or clinician sampling for cervical screening: A cross-sectional survey of women taking part in a clinical validation of HPV self-collection devices.Journal of medical screening · 2025Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening: Patient Perspectives on Transitioning to Primary High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing Alone.The Permanente journal · 2024Article
- Public acceptability and anticipated uptake of risk-stratified bowel cancer screening in the UK: An online survey.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Awareness and knowledge about HPV and primary HPV screening among women in Great Britain: An online population-based survey.Journal of medical screening · 2024Article
- Implementation of risk stratification within bowel cancer screening: a community jury study exploring public acceptability and communication needs.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Understanding the Challenges of HPV-Based Cervical Screening: Development and Validation of HPV Testing and Self-Sampling Attitudes and Beliefs Scales.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- "A lot can happen in five years": Women's attitudes to extending cervical screening intervals.European journal of cancer care · 2022Article
- Article
- Acceptability of extending HPV-based cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years: an interview study with women in England.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Assessing Canadian women's preferences for cervical cancer screening: A brief report.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe tested the impact of different messages about the rationale for extended cervical screening intervals on acceptability of an extension.
methodsWomen in England aged 25-49 years (n = 2931) were randomised to a control group or one of 5 groups given different messages about extending cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years. Outcome measures were general acceptability and six components from the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).
resultsThe groups who saw additional messages (47-63%) were more likely to find the change acceptable than controls (43%). Messages about interval safety, test accuracy and speed of cell changes resulted in more positive affective-attitudes, higher ethicality beliefs, a better understanding of the reasons for extended intervals and greater belief in the safety of 5-year intervals. Being up-to-date with screening and previous abnormal results were associated with finding 5-yearly screening unacceptable.
conclusionsEmphasising the slow development of cell changes following an HPV negative result and the safety of longer intervals, alongside the accuracy of HPV primary screening is important. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Campaigns explaining the rationale for extended cervical screening intervals are likely to improve acceptability. Though women who feel at increased risk, may remain worried even when the rationale is explained.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.