Trial reportFrontiers in public health2024
Knowledge about cervical cancer in young Portuguese women: a cross-sectional study.
Trial report in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cervical cancer and screening: Knowledge, attitudes, and adherence among university students in Italy.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- A preference study for applying mHealth to improve the quality of cervical cancer screening management from a supply and demand perspective: a discrete choice experiment.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Missed Opportunities in Cervical Cancer Prevention: Knowledge and Screening Practices Among Women with Hemoglobinopathies in Greece.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026Article
- Health literacy and risk behaviours related to sexually transmitted infections among Portuguese university students: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Menstrual, reproductive, and contraceptive factors associated with cervical cancer in women aged ≤35 years: an individually matched case-control study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Barriers to cervical cancer screening: a cross-sectional study of non-adherent Portuguese women.BMC primary care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Health literacy is crucial to adherence to medical interventions in therapeutics, prevention, and diagnosis. The basis for literacy is knowledge. To accomplish the goals for the elimination of cervical cancer, one of the most prevalent and preventable cancers, we must understand the determinants of non-adherence and address them specifically to ensure patients' active participation. Aim: To determine women's knowledge regarding the manifestations of cervical cancer and its prevention. Materials and methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study in an urban population from northern Portugal. Women aged 18 to 30 years were randomly assigned to answer the Cervical Cancer Awareness Measure questionnaire, including questions of knowledge about the causes and symptoms of cervical cancer, prospecting for individual and social-related determinants. Results: The total number of participants was 270, with a mean age of 24.7 years. Knowledge about symptoms scored 5.4 ± 2.6, with a maximum of 12 points, and knowledge about the causes scored 5.7 ± 1.9, with a maximum of 11 points. The correlation between both was 0.334. High education, high socio-economic status, self-perception of one's capacity to recognize symptoms, and knowledge about the HPV vaccine were associated with better knowledge. Discussion: Portuguese women present low knowledge about cervical cancer, potentially affecting their health through exposure to risk situations and non-adherence to routine screening.
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.