Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35613829›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2022

Improving the uptake of cervical screening in pregnant and recently postnatal women: a quality improvement project.

Sarah Louise Coleridge, Alison Wiggans, Ellen Nelissen, Rob Bethune, Richard Blackwell, Andrew Bryant, Jo Morrison

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Comparison of Cervical Screening at 6- and 12-Weeks Postnatal: A Paired-Sample Feasibility Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Counselling to Screening: Honing an Institutional Cervical Cancer Screening Program.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah Louise ColeridgeObstetrics and Gynaecology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7503-0907
Alison WiggansGynaecological Oncology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, UK.
Ellen NelissenGynaecological Oncology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Rob BethuneSouth West Academic Health Science Network, Exeter, UK.
Richard BlackwellSouth West Academic Health Science Network, Exeter, UK.
Andrew BryantInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Jo MorrisonGynaecological Oncology, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK jo_morrison@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0000-520X
Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBNewcastle University · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBRoyal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBTaunton & Somerset NHS Foundation Trust · GBWest of England Academic Health Science Network · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2018, cervical screening uptake was at its lowest level since screening began, particularly in those aged 25-35, coinciding with the peak incidence of cervical cancer and average age at first delivery. PROBLEM: Retrospective baseline data of pregnant women found 47.3% (n=123/260) were overdue for screening by delivery, of whom 74% (n=91/123) remained overdue by 6 months postnatal.

methodsWe undertook a quality improvement project from April 2018 to April 2019 to improve cervical screening uptake in pregnant and postnatal women. We mapped out the screening process and canvassed stakeholders. The main theme was inconsistency of advice received by women. From February 2018 to May 2020, we undertook a prospective audit of 10 women per week who gave birth in our maternity department, recording screening status at delivery and 6 months postnatal.Interventions included introducing evidence-based guidelines about cervical screening in pregnancy and the postnatal period, flow charts for maternity staff, multiprofessional teaching for all maternity staff and information dissemination to women (via the HANDiApp platform, a social media campaign and adapting results letters following colposcopy, highlighting dates when screening would be due). Primary care opening hours were extended for screening and women received a letter from their midwives, if they required cervical screening in pregnancy.

resultsLocally, the percentage of women overdue for cervical screening by 6 months postnatal improved by 8.0% during this project, compared with a 1.6% change in national screening rates in women aged 25-49.

conclusionsWe increased the percentage of local pregnant and postnatal women attending cervical screening by introduction of a package of information, targeted education and widening access to screening appointments.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPregnancyQuality ImprovementRetrospective Studieshealthcare quality improvementhealth promotionobstetrics and gynecologypatient educationstatistical process control

Identifiers

PMID35613829
PMCPMC9134207
OpenAlexW4281476245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.