ArticlePreventive medicine2025
Cervical cancer screening and risk factor prevalence by sexual identity: A comparison across three national surveys in the United States.
Article in Preventive medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Experiences of Inclusion and Exclusion Across the Gynaecological Cancer Continuum for Individuals With Diverse Gender and Sexuality Backgrounds: A Systematic Review.Psycho-oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Earlier Age at Cancer Diagnosis Among Sexual Minority Adults: a National Analysis from 2019 to 2023.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Mammography screening and risk factor prevalence by sexual identity: A comparison of two national surveys.Cancer · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWomen identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer (LGBQ) have lower cervical cancer screening use and differences in care access. Less known about how differences vary by data sources and within LGBQ subgroups. We evaluated LGBQ disparities in cervical cancer screening use and risk factors across three national surveys in the United States.
methodsData were from the 2019 and 2021 National Health Interview Survey, the 2018 and 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, and the 2017-2019 National Survey of Family Growth. We meta-analyzed self-reported cervical cancer screening to estimate pooled relative risks (pRR), comparing those identifying as LGBQ to those identifying as straight/heterosexual. We also evaluated differences in care access and behavioral risk factors by sexual identity.
resultsDespite demographic differences across surveys, all three surveys demonstrated a small reduction in up-to-date cervical cancer screening for LGBQ vs. straight/heterosexual women (pRR = 0.91 [CI 0.89-0.93]). The screening gap was larger for gay/lesbian (pRR: 0.90 [0.85-0.94]) than bisexual women (pRR: 0.94 [0.92-0.97]) and largest at younger ages (pRR age 21-29: 0.89 [CI 0.85-0.93]). LGBQ women reported consistently lower access to care across multiple measures. Risk factors were mixed, including higher smoking rates and higher HPV vaccination coverage for LGBQ women vs. straight. DISCUSSION: LGBQ women are less likely to be screened for cervical cancer. Closing disparities in care access and identifying feasible and acceptable screening interventions will help reduce these disparities. We must also ensure high-quality data collection to monitor disparities across and within key subgroups.
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.