ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2022
A walk-in clinic as an alternative approach to reaching non-attenders of the cervical cancer screening program in the North Denmark region-a pilot study.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences and Perceptions of Cervical Cancer Screening Using Self-Sampling among Under-Screened Women in Flanders.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Effects of Sintilimab Plus Radiotherapy on Levels of Spondin-2 and Glucose Transporter-1 in Patients with Cervical Cancer.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- A walk-in clinic as an alternative approach to reaching non-attenders of the cervical cancer screening program in the North Denmark region-a pilot study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUp to 39% of women in Denmark do not participate regularly in the cervical cancer screening program and initiatives to increase participation are called upon. The primary aim of this study was to describe previous screening history and characteristics of women attending screening in a walk-in clinic. Furthermore, we wanted to investigate barriers to cervical cancer screening. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe designed a walk-in clinic that was open 2 days a week from 16.00 to 19.00 h, located in the Departments of Gynecology in the two main hospitals of the North Denmark Region. The main purpose of the clinic was cervical cancer screening and the study period was 5 months. Women who were not eligible for screening or had other health complaints were referred to their general practitioner. The women included in the study, filled out a questionnaire regarding educational and occupational status; their screening history was registered using data from the Danish Pathology Register.
resultsDuring the study period, 255 women visited the walk-in clinic. The final study population consisted of 249 women who met the inclusion criteria. Age range of participants was 23-77 years, with a median age of 45 years. The majority of the participants were currently employed (81%) or students (10%), the remaining being retired (5%) or unemployed (4%). Screening history showed that 138 (55.4%) of the women were on time for the screening or delayed less than 6 months compared to their recommended screening interval. Sixty-one women (24.5%) were delayed >6 months but <2 years. Fifty women (20.1%) were classified as non-attenders, with more than a 2-year delay in their screening. In the group of non-attenders, eight women had never been screened. Of the remaining 42 women, the median time since last screening was 8.2 years (range 5.0-25.3 years).
conclusionsWomen attending the walk-in clinic tended to be primarily actively working or students (91%). All age groups in the screening population were represented. Screening history showed that 44.6% had not followed the recommended screening program.
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.