ArticleBMJ open2025
How can cervical screening meet the needs of vulnerable women? A qualitative comparative study with stakeholder perspectives from seven European countries.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- The co-creation of a document to guide the use of self-sampling for human papillomavirus screening in Italy.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Assessing the Capacity of Health Facilities to Deliver Concomitant HPV Vaccination and HPV-Based Cervical Screening Services to Vulnerable Populations - An Implementation Research Protocol.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study explored and compared stakeholder perspectives on enhancements to cervical cancer screening for vulnerable women across seven European countries.
designIn a series of Collaborative User Boards, stakeholders were invited to collaborate on identifying facilitators to improve cervical cancer screening.
settingThis study was part of the CBIG-SCREEN project which is funded by the European Union and targets disparities in cervical cancer screening for vulnerable women (www.cbig-screen.eu). Data collection took place in Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy, Portugal and Romania.
participantsRepresented stakeholders at various levels, including user representatives (vulnerable women), healthcare professionals, social workers, programme managers and decision makers.
methods14 meetings lasting 2 hours each were held in these seven countries between October 2021 and June 2022. The meetings were audio or video recorded, transcribed and translated into English for qualitative framework analysis.
resultsWe engaged 120 participants in the Collaborative User Boards. Proposed solutions targeted both provider and system levels. In all countries, fostering trusting relationships between vulnerable women and social or healthcare professionals, coupled with community outreach for awareness and access to testing was a consistent recommendation. Participants in Estonia, Denmark, France, Italy, Portugal and Romania advocated for tailoring healthcare services to meet the unique needs of vulnerable populations through a holistic approach. In Bulgaria and Romania, participants advocated for the need to secure free access, from screening to follow-up, and emphasised the need for organised screening with target population screening registries.
conclusionThe study offers insights into stakeholders' recommendations for enhancing cervical cancer screening services for vulnerable women across seven European countries. Despite variations in the implementation level of population-based screening programmes, the imperative to optimise outreach and proximity work to improve cervical cancer screening resonated across all countries.
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.