Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37239727›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Unpacking the Lay Epidemiology of Cervical Cancer: A Focus Group Study on the Perceptions of Cervical Cancer and Its Prevention among Women Late for Screening in Norway.

Gunvor Aasbø, Bo T Hansen, Jo Waller, Mari Nygård, Kari N Solbrække

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Recommendations for a Communication Strategy to Support Informed Decision-Making About Self or Clinician Sampling for Cervical Screening in the UK: Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  2. Why do people choose not to take part in screening? Qualitative interview study of atrial fibrillation screening nonparticipation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Gunvor AasbøDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, 0304 Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-8981-5374
Bo T HansenDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, 0304 Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2765-4488
Jo WallerSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4025-9132
Mari NygårdDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, 0304 Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-4100-4855
Kari N SolbrækkeDepartment of Interdisciplinary Health Science, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, 0318 Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2684-5397
University of Oslo · NOCancer Registry of Norway · NOKing's College London · GBNorwegian Institute of Public Health · NO

Funding

Cancer Research UK 17219Norwegian Cancer Society 82687-2016Thea Steen Memorial Fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nonattendance for cervical cancer screening is often understood in terms of a lack of 'appropriate' or 'correct' knowledge about the risks and prevention of the disease. Few studies have explored how lay persons-the users themselves-interpret and contextualise scientific knowledge about cervical cancer. In this study, we address the following research question: How is the epidemiology of cervical cancer and its prevention discussed among women who are late for cervical cancer screening in Norway? We completed nine focus group interviews (FGIs) with 41 women who had postponed cervical screening. The analyses were both inductive and explorative, aiming to unpack the complexity of lay understandings of cervical cancer. Interactive associations expressed in the FGIs reflected multiple understandings of aetiology and risk factors, screening, and interpretations of responsibility for acquiring cervical cancer. The term 'candidacy' was employed to provide an enhanced understanding of lay reasoning about the explanations and predictions of cervical cancer, as reflected in the FGIs. Both interpretations of biomedical concepts and cultural values were used to negotiate acceptable and nuanced interpretations of candidacy for cervical cancer. Uncertainties about risk factors for acquiring cervical cancer was an important aspect of such negotiations. The study's findings provide an in-depth understanding of the contexts in which screening may be rendered less relevant or significant for maintaining health. Lay epidemiology should not be considered inappropriate knowledge but rather as a productive component when understanding health behaviours, such as screening attendance.

Indexed as

aetiologycandidacycervical cancer screeninglay epidemiologylay perspectivenonattendanceNorwayrisksuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID37239727
PMCPMC10218218
OpenAlexW4376644170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.