Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38846600›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2024

Working together with people with intellectual disability to make a difference: a protocol for a mixed-method co-production study to address inequities in cervical screening participation.

Deborah Bateson, Jane Ussher, Iva Strnadová, Julie Loblinzk, Michael David, Ee-Lin Chang, Allison Carter, Sally Sweeney, Lauren Winkler, Rosalie Power and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

13 authors.

Deborah BatesonThe Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jane UssherTranslational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Iva StrnadováUniversity of New South Wales, Faculty of Arts Design and Architecture, School of Education, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Julie LoblinzkSelf Advocacy Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Michael DavidThe Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ee-Lin ChangFamily Planning Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Allison CarterKirby Institute, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sally SweeneyFamily Planning Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Lauren WinklerThe Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Rosalie PowerTranslational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Caroline BasckinUniversity of New South Wales, Faculty of Arts Design and Architecture, School of Education, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Elizabeth KennedyThe Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Heather JollyFamily Planning Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Cervical cancer is one of the most preventable cancers yet remains a disease of inequity for people with intellectual disability, in part due to low screening rates. The ScreenEQUAL project will use an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) model to co-produce and evaluate accessible cervical screening resources with and for this group. Methods: Stage 1 will qualitatively explore facilitators and barriers to screening participation for people with intellectual disability, families and support people, healthcare providers and disability sector stakeholders ( Outcomes and analysis: Our primary outcome is a change in informed decision-making by people with intellectual disability across the domains of knowledge, attitudes, and screening intention. Secondary outcomes include: (i) uptake of screening in the 9-months following the intervention workshops, (ii) changes in health literacy, attitudes and self-efficacy of family members and support people, and (iii) changes in knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and preparedness of screening providers. Each participant group will evaluate acceptability, feasibility and usability of the resources. Discussion: If found to be effective and acceptable, the co-produced cervical screening resources and training materials will be made freely available through the ScreenEQUAL website to support national, and potentially international, scale-up.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerIntellectual DisabilityUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedQualitative Researchaccessible informationcervical screeningco-productioninequityintellectual disabilityself-collection HPV testtrauma informed care

Identifiers

PMID38846600
PMCPMC11155193

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.