ArticleJAMA network open2025
Cervical Cancer Screening in Women With Physical Disabilities.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptability of, and preference for, human papillomavirus self-sampling for physically Disabled women: A cross-sectional survey.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Assessing the prevalence of non-use of cervical cancer screening in Khouribga, Morocco.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Major changes in cervical cancer screening in the US.Preventive medicine · 2026Article
- Native American Women's Willingness to Screen for Both Cervical and Colorectal Cancer at Home.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Rural women choose self-sampling over a pelvic exam for cervical cancer screening: a mixed-method study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- A United States study of self-collected urine vs clinician-collected cervical sample for HPV and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade two or worse detection: Cross-sectional agreement and diagnostic accuracy study.Preventive medicine reports · 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
12 authors.
Funding
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
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.