ArticleBMJ open2025
Development and preliminary evaluation in community mental health teams of a cervical screening informed-choice tool for women with severe mental illness in England: a mixed-method study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWomen with severe mental illness (SMI) face barriers to cervical cancer screening, leading to lower participation and poorer outcomes. This research aimed to develop and test an informed-choice tool to help women with SMI make informed decisions about screening attendance.
designThe tool was developed using a realist review of physical health interventions and a systematic review of informed-choice tools for people with SMI. A mixed-methods approach informed its development. Usability and acceptability were assessed through semistructured interviews and the think-aloud method with service users (n=18), clinicians (n=16) and key informants. A preliminary proof-of-concept (n=25) evaluated the impact on decisional conflict-the uncertainty around making value-sensitive choices. SETTING AND
participantsConducted in two National Health Service (NHS) Mental Health Trusts (urban and rural). Participants included women with SMI accessing secondary mental healthcare, clinicians and service user groups. A key informants' group guided clinical content.
interventionA cervical screening informed-choice leaflet and an accompanying video.
resultsThe tool was usable and acceptable, especially for women overdue or never screened. It may reduce decisional conflict and increase screening uptake, potentially improving survival. An National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)-funded feasibility trial (Impr
conclusionsFuture research may involve further assessments of the real-world impact of the tool and its adaptation to other health-related decisions.
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.