ArticlePloS one2025
Patient acceptability of CITOBOT for cervical cancer screening: A mixed-method study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study assessed the acceptability of CITOBOT, a device for early cervical cancer screening in a real-world pilot setting as part of a translational research project aimed at designing and clinically validating a portable, cost-effective device supported by artificial intelligence. The authors adopted the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability for its utility in evaluating patient acceptability within complex interventions' development, piloting, and feasibility phases. We employed a mixed-method study, with 20 consecutive participants recruited from a specialized cancer healthcare center in Cali, Colombia. Data collection included a sociodemographic, gynecological-obstetric, behavioral survey, a validated patient acceptability scale, alongside open-ended interview questions. No adverse effects were reported seven days post-testing. The findings were promising, with all participants expressing high overall acceptability. Retrospective acceptability, focusing on the evaluation after device pilot testing, revealed that participants felt comfortable with the device, found it coherent with the purpose of early cervical cancer detection, and did not perceive the test as an additional burden compared to conventional cytology screening. Regarding prospective acceptability, which assesses anticipated acceptability before full implementation, three results stand out: i) All participants stated that they would intend to attend their health service if called for testing with CITOBOT; ii) they perceived opportunity costs, such as timely delivery of results, expedited diagnosis and treatment, and improved accessibility for women with limited resources or geographical barriers to healthcare access; and iii) participants viewed CITOBOT as highly effective in preventing cervical cancer deaths, indicating a strong belief in its potential to impact public health outcomes positively. Addressing concerns related to discomfort, inconvenience, and timely delivery of results, CITOBOT shows promise in enhancing cervical cancer screening participation and adherence, especially among underserved populations.
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.