Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39878976›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Cervical Cancer Screening in Women With Physical Disabilities.

Alexandra H Vinson, Corrianne Norrid, Elizabeth K Haro, Susan Ernst, Christelle El Khoury, Martha L Alves, Autumn Kieber-Emmons, Ashwini Kamath Mulki, Emma A Butcher, Claire Kalpakjian and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

12 authors.

Alexandra H VinsonDepartment of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Corrianne NorridShort Term Biomedical Research Training Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Elizabeth K HaroDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Susan ErnstUniversity Health Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Christelle El KhouryDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Martha L AlvesDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Autumn Kieber-EmmonsDepartment of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Ashwini Kamath MulkiDepartment of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Emma A ButcherDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Claire KalpakjianDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Michael M McKeeDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Diane M HarperDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Funding

XenograftP30CA046592 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Eric R. Fearon · 1988 to 2026
$178.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046592
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Cervical cancer screening is a crucial public health intervention, but screening disparities exist for women with physical disabilities (WWPD). Objective: To explore the experiences of WWPD with both traditional speculum examination-based screening and at-home self-sampling for cervical cancer screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study enrolled 56 WWPD to test self-sampling kits, provide feedback via a survey, and participate in a qualitative interview. An interprofessional team conducted semistructured interviews with 16 key informants and 40 pilot participants for 56 WWPD from November 1, 2021, through April 30, 2023. All completed a self-administered quantitative survey. Key informants' experiences with 4 self-sampling devices helped determine which 2 self-sampling kits would be offered to participants in a pilot study. Main Outcomes and Measures: A coding scheme was developed to represent inductive codes generated through preliminary coding and deductive codes representing domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework. This coding scheme was used to conduct a 2-pass thematic analysis. Results: Of the 56 WWPD (mean [SD] age, 45.4 [9.1] years) who participated in the study, 28 (50.0%) were up to date with cervical cancer screening. Participants described accessibility barriers and clinician ableism that made speculum-based in-office examinations difficult, leading some participants to delay or avoid screening. In contrast, participants described self-screening as more comfortable and convenient, regardless of whether they prefer future speculum-based screening. Their responses also allowed for the exploration of how screening preferences may impact future screening behavior. Conclusions and Relevance: Interviews with WWPD suggested that access to self-sampling screening options would be more comfortable for cervical cancer screening participation. Understanding participants' experiences with self-sampling devices generates insights into improving screening experiences for WWPD.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningPersons with DisabilitiesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID39878976
PMCPMC11780472

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.