Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40392562›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion international2025

Beyond words: operationalizing inclusive language in Australian cervical screening health promotion policy.

Kerryn Drysdale, Nicola S Creagh, Claire Nightingale, Lisa J Whop, Angela Kelly-Hanku

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health promotion international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Kerryn DrysdaleCentre for Social Research in Health, UNSW, Warrane (Sydney), Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5545-290X
Nicola S CreaghMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Naarm (Melbourne), Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0908-5453
Claire NightingaleMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Naarm (Melbourne), Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4103-6240
Lisa J WhopYardhura Walani, National Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Wellbeing Research, The Australian National University, Ngambri (Canberra), Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4816-2933
Angela Kelly-HankuThe Kirby Institute, UNSW, Warrane (Sydney), Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0152-2954

Funding

L.J.W. was supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant 2009380NHMRC Postgraduate scholarship APP2014266Victorian Cancer Agency Mid-Career Research Fellowship MCRF21039
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health equity is a fundamental concern within the broader health promotion aim of creating equal opportunities for health and bringing health differentials down to the lowest level possible. Cervical screening is just one example of a preventative health program where a health promotion lens is required to address entrenched health inequities. We draw on theorizations of policy ecologies to provide a framework for better understanding the processes involved in operationalizing policy with greater inclusivity in language in health promotion. Twenty-eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 key informants between April and October 2022 to explore the operationalization of inclusive language in health promotion in the context of a national program to promote cervical screening to currently underscreening communities in Australia. Four thematic categories emphasize the balance required between demands and domains: (i) the need for clinical guidelines and flexibility in their translation and interpretation; (ii) organizational mandates, clinical practice, and patient-centred care; (iii) socio-cultural norms, behaviours, and attitudes amid politicized/ing milieus; and (iv) community preferences and the need for medical accuracy. As such, we identified how the operationalization of inclusive language in policy is influenced by and influences other domains where cervical screening is promoted. These findings hold wider implications for how the historical legacies of and contemporary need for 'women's health' can be maintained and respected amid demands for greater gender inclusion. At the same time, the failure to trace diverse and diffuse modes and contexts of operationalization may (re)produce health inequities in practice if left unexamined.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerHealth PolicyHealth PromotionLanguageMass ScreeningUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAustraliaFemaleHealth EquityHumansInterviews as Topicgender and sexuality diversegender inclusionhealth equityhealth promotionLGBTIQA+National Cervical Screening Programpolicy implementationwomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID40392562
PMCPMC12090894

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.