Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36926594›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2023

The effect of extended participation windows on attendance at cervical cancer screening.

Kelly M Castañeda, Grigory A Sidorenkov, Jolien de Waard, Marcel J W Greuter, Bert van der Vegt, Inge M C M de Kok, Albert G Siebers, Karin M Vermeulen, G Bea A Wisman, Ed Schuuring and 1 more

Full text read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

Kelly M CastañedaDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands.
Grigory A SidorenkovDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands.
Jolien de WaardDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, Cancer Research Center Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands.
Marcel J W GreuterDepartment of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands.
Bert van der VegtDepartment of Pathology & Medical Biology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands.
Inge M C M de KokDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Albert G SiebersPALGA, the Nationwide Network and Registry of Histo- and Cytopathology in the Netherlands, 3991 SZ Houten, the Netherlands.
Karin M VermeulenDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands.
G Bea A WismanDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, Cancer Research Center Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands.
Ed SchuuringDepartment of Pathology & Medical Biology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands.
Geertruida H de BockDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research has long since confirmed the benefits of regular cervical cancer screening (CCS) worldwide. However, some developed countries have low participation rates despite well-organized screening programs. Given that studies in Europe typically define participation in 12-month windows from an invitation, we evaluated both whether extending this defined time window could reveal the true participation rate and how sociodemographic determinants affect participation delays. This involved linking data from the Lifelines population-based cohort with CCS-related data from the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank and including data for 69 185 women eligible for screening in the Dutch CCS program between 2014 and 2018. We then estimated and compared the participation rates for 15- and 36-month time windows and categorized women by the primary screening window into timely participation (within 15 months) and delayed participation (within 15-36 months) groups, before performing multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between delayed participation and the sociodemographic determinants. Participation rates for the 15- and 36-month windows were 71.1% and 77.0%, respectively, with participation considered timely in 49 224 cases and delayed in 4047 cases. Delayed participation was associated with age 30-35 years (odds ratio [OR]: 2.88, 95 %CI: 2.67-3.11), higher education (OR: 1.50, 95 %CI: 1.35-1.67), the high-risk human papillomavirus test-based program (OR: 1.67, 95 %CI: 1.56-1.79), and pregnancy (OR: 4.61, 95 %CI: 3.88-5.48). These findings show that a 36-month window for monitoring attendance at CCS better reflects the actual participation rate by accommodating possible delayed uptake among younger, pregnant, and highly educated women.

Indexed as

CCS, cervical cancer screeningEarly detection of cancerhrHPV, high-risk human papillomavirusPALGA, Dutch Nationwide Pathology DatabankPatient complianceUterine cervical neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID36926594
PMCPMC10011428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read51
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.