ArticleBMJ open2024
Adherence to cervical cancer screening in France: factors influencing the healthcare professionals' decisions-a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cervical cancer and screening: Knowledge, attitudes, and adherence among university students in Italy.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- What influences the decision by primary care doctors to recommend cancer screening? A qualitative evidence synthesis.BMJ open · 2026Review
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo understand what leads to the non-adherence to the cervical cancer screening (CCS) recommendations during a consultation.
designFor this qualitative study, in-depth semistructured interviews were carried out with French healthcare professionals. An interview guide was developed and tested. It included the following themes: CCS recommendations, patients' profiles, relationship with patients, emotional work, over-screening and under-screening. Interviews were carried out until data saturation (no new data, theoretical diversity reached). The grounded theory was used for data analysis.
participantsGynaecologists, midwives and general practitioners (GPs). The sample diversity was achieved using the following criteria: place of work, type of healthcare profession, type of patients, private-sector or hospital professional.
settingInterviews were conducted between July and December 2022 in six regions in France.
resultsIn-depth semistructured interviews were carried out with 15 midwives, 24 GPs and 11 gynaecologists from six French regions. Their analysis highlighted that the following factors contributed to the non-adherence to the CCS recommendation: burden of caring for family members for some women, adhesion to the principle of yearly screening by healthcare professionals and patients, need of negotiating the respect of the CCS recommendations, use of emotions, and arbitration to prioritise what is needed for good health maintenance. The search for mutual emotional comfort led some healthcare professionals to adopt attitudes towards the CCS that avoid positioning conflicts, even if this means departing from the recommendations.
conclusionCCS can be correctly performed if healthcare professionals and patients agree on the need of actively taking care of their health, which is difficult for women from lower sociocultural backgrounds. During the one-to-one meeting with their patients, healthcare professionals may find difficult to apply the CCS recommendations, although they know and agree with them.
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.