ArticleBMC women's health2025
A cross-sectional analysis of factors associated with cervical cancer screening in a large midwest primary care setting.
Article in BMC women's health, 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.
- Exploring Women's Attitudes Towards Cervical Cancer Screening and Their Association with Life Satisfaction and General Life Attitudes: A Systematic Review.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026Pooled it
- Lung cancer screening completion rates and neighborhood disadvantage among primary care patients in an integrated delivery network health system: a retrospective data analysis.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Delivering HPV results via telehealth: Patient needs and engagement following an at-home self-collection study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLower cervical cancer screening (CCS) rates have been reported among non-White populations, older women, rural populations, and populations with low socioeconomic status (SES). We evaluate associations between CCS status and individual, healthcare, and SES variables in a large primary care setting in southeast Minnesota.
methodsWe identified participants assigned female sex at birth, aged 21-65 years, without hysterectomy, and eligible for CCS via cross-sectional analysis of the electronic health record. Subjects were categorized as having up-to-date CCS or not. Logistic regression was used to model CCS status, with odds ratios (OR) and respective confidence intervals (95% CI) calculated for single predictor models for demographic factors, co-morbidities, and healthcare utilization.
resultsApproximately 78% (30,670 subjects) were current with CCS (total N = 39,433). Individuals who were Hispanic [OR (95% CI): 0.69 (0.62, 0.76)], non-White [0.53 (0.5, 0.56)], foreign-born [0.49 (0.46, 0.52)], and/or had limited English proficiency [0.44 (0.40, 0.49)] had lower odds of up-to-date CCS compared to Non-Hispanic, White, US-born, and/or English-speaking individuals. Older age, higher comorbidity burden, greater healthcare utilization, and having a female primary care provider were associated with higher odds of up-to-date CCS, while an inactive online patient portal account had lower odds of up-to-date CCS. Individuals with lower SES had lower odds of up-to-date CCS compared to those with higher SES.
conclusionsIn our sample, disparities in CCS status were associated with specific individual, healthcare, and SES factors/characteristics. Our results identify populations that may benefit from targeted interventions to address CCS uptake.
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.