ArticleCancer medicine2024
Perspective of obstetric care-providers on being involved in cervical cancer screening during antenatal care in the Netherlands.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspective of pregnant women on feasibility of integrating cervical cancer screening into antenatal care in the Netherlands: a questionnaire study.European journal of public health · 2025Article
- Perspective of obstetric care-providers on being involved in cervical cancer screening during antenatal care in the Netherlands.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to determine attitude of Dutch midwifes, gynecologists and general practitioners (GPs) towards involvement in antenatal cervical cancer screening (CCS) in the Netherlands.
methodsIn 2021, Dutch midwives, gynecologists, and GPs were offered a single digital questionnaire assessing perceived feasibility, benefits, and harms of antenatal CCS.
resultsA total of 6943 Questionnaires were send and response rate was 18% (N = 1260). Of all respondents, 78% considered antenatal CCS via obstetric care providers feasible. Most respondents (85%) agreed that offering CCS in person can increase motivation to attend. Most midwives (93%) considered that women would feel less encumbered if cervical sampling would be performed by obstetric care providers, rather than by GPs.
conclusionResults indicate that introduction of antenatal CCS is considered feasible by a majority of Dutch midwifes, gynecologists, and GPs. Considered benefits include improved motivation to attend and reduced test related barriers.
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.