ArticlePloS one2022
Patient perspectives on cervical cancer screening interventions among underscreened women.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Streamlined Self-Collection Screening for Sexually Transmitted Infections and Human Papillomavirus: A Single-Group Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Preferences of High-Risk HPV-Based Cervical Cancer Screening among Transgender Men and Gender Diverse People Assigned Female at Birth: A Cross-Sectional Study at a Single Academic Center.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of factors associated with cervical cancer screening in a large midwest primary care setting.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Experiences and Preferences Reported with an At-Home Self-Collection Device Compared with In-Clinic Speculum-Based Cervical Cancer Screening in the United States.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Providers and women's perspectives on opportunities, challenges and recommendations to improve cervical cancer screening in women living with HIV at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital: a qualitative study.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Acceptability of HPV self-collection: A qualitative study of Black women living with type II diabetes and social vulnerability.Journal of clinical & translational endocrinology · 2024Article
- Association of Regular Cervical Cancer Screening with Socioeconomic, COVID-19 Infection and Vaccine Status Among Japanese Population: Cohort Observational Study.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- Implementing self-collection for primary human papillomavirus testing: Perspectives on implications for federally qualified health center patient populations.Women's health (London, England)Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is highly preventable with regular screening, yet over 4,000 women die from it annually in the United States. Over half of new cervical cancer cases in the U.S. are attributable to insufficient screening.
methodsParticipants were 23 low-income, uninsured or Medicaid-insured women in North Carolina who were overdue for cervical cancer screening according to national guidelines. Semi-structured interviews examined perspectives on barriers to cervical cancer screening and on interventions to reduce these barriers. We also elicited feedback on three proposed evidence-based interventions: one-on-one education, coupons to reduce out-of-pocket costs, and self-collection of samples for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, the primary cause of cervical cancer.
resultsReported barriers included high cost, inconvenient clinic hours, lack of provider recommendation, poor transportation, difficulty finding a provider, fear of pain, and low perceived need. Participants suggested interventions including reducing cost, improving convenience through community-based screening or extended clinic hours, strengthening provider recommendations, and providing one-on-one counseling and education outreach. HPV self-collection was most frequently selected as the "most helpful" of 3 proposed interventions (n = 11), followed by reducing out-of-pocket costs (n = 7) and one-on-one education (n = 5).
conclusionCost was the most reported barrier to cervical cancer screening, although women experience multiple simultaneous barriers. Novel interventions such as HPV self-collection promise to reduce some, but not all, barriers to primary screening. Interventions that work on reducing multiple barriers, including obstacles to receiving follow-up care, may be most effective to prevent cervical cancer among these high-risk women.
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.