ArticleEuropean journal of cancer care2022
Factor influencing women with learning disabilities deciding to, and accessing, cervical and breast cancer screening: Findings from a Q methodology study of women with learning disabilities, family and paid carers.
Article in European journal of cancer care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cancer Prevention in Adults with Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Literature Review of Caregiver Perspectives in Institutional and Home Care Settings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Pooled it
- Cancer screening in people with intellectual disability: a scoping review of participation, barriers, facilitators, and improvement strategies within the EUCanScreen initiative.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Cervical screening participation and access facilitators and barriers for people with intellectual disability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Review
- Factor influencing women with learning disabilities deciding to, and accessing, cervical and breast cancer screening: Findings from a Q methodology study of women with learning disabilities, family and paid carers.European journal of cancer care · 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo understand knowledge of, attitudes towards and decision-making around cervical and breast cancer screening in women with learning disabilities, family carers and paid carers.
methodsA Q methodology study involving 13 women with learning disabilities, three family carers and five paid care workers, from the North-East of England. A Q-sort of 28 statements was completed with all participants completing a post-Q-sort interview to understand the reason behind the card placements. Factor analysis was completed using PQMethod and interpreted using framework analysis.
resultsFactor 1, named 'Personal choice and ownership', explores how women with learning disabilities want to be supported to make their own decision to attend cancer screening and explored their preferred support needs. Factor 2, named 'Protecting vs. enablement', portrayed the battle family carers and paid care workers felt to protect women with learning disabilities from harm, whilst feeling that they were supporting women with learning disabilities to decide to attend cancer screening. Eight consensus statements were identified indicating a shared perspective.
conclusionsCancer screening services should ensure that women with learning disabilities are supported to make informed decisions to attend cancer screening and then be further supported throughout the cancer pathway.
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.