ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2022
Do they cope or mope? A survey of GPs' experiences with the changes in the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Communicating abnormal cervical cancer screening results - a focus group study with general practitioners in Norway.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- General Practitioners' Needs and Preferences Regarding the Provision of Self-sampling Tests for Cervical Cancer Screening in Flanders, Belgium.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore Norwegian general practitioners' (GPs) experiences with the changes in the cervical cancer screening programme and to uncover which aspects of the programme they find most challenging.
designWe conducted an electronic cross-sectional survey.
settingNorwegian GPs were invited to participate in the survey between February and September in 2020. SUBJECTS: One hundred and fifty-five of 429 invited Norwegian GPs responded.
main outcome measuresSelf-reported measures were used to analyse GPs experiences and beliefs related to the screening programme.
resultsMost GPs did not find it particularly challenging to keep up with the changes in the screening programme, regardless of whether they came from areas with HPV-based or cytology-based cervical cancer screening implemented. Challenges concerning the follow-up of patients after an abnormal test were a frequently reported issue. We did not find any differences in how often GPs were uncertain of the follow-up of an abnormal test result in areas with HPV-based compared to cytology-based screening.
conclusionsThe implementation of HPV-based cervical cancer screening in women 34-69 years does not seem to have affected how challenging the GPs perceive the screening programme.Key PointsHow Norwegian general practitioners (GPs) keep up with changes in the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (NCCSP) has not been assessed previously.Most GPs did not find it particularly challenging to keep up with changes in the NCCSP regardless of whether they belonged to an area of HPV-based or cytology-based screening.The follow-up of patients with an abnormal test result was one of the main challenges reported by the GPs.
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.