ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
Evaluating the impact of a patient-representative model of support for women affected by cervical cancer.
Article in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trauma-informed care within oncology? Understanding the impact of childhood trauma on experiences of cancer and cancer services in adulthood.British journal of health psychology · 2026Article
- "Don't settle": Rural cervical cancer survivors' navigation of cancer care from an intersectional framework.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the aftermath of high-profile healthcare system failures, patient representative groups can emerge as key contributors to support, reform, and accountability. Following the identification of failures in Ireland's CervicalCheck screening programme in 2018, the 221+ Patient Representative Group (commonly known as 221+) was established to support affected women and families.
objectivesThe present research aimed to assess the impact of the 221+ group and associated patient representatives in supporting women and influencing the delivery of healthcare.
designAn independent research team conducted a two-phase qualitative study, gathering perspectives from a range of stakeholders involved in statutory, non-statutory, and voluntary healthcare sectors in Ireland.
methodInterview data collected from key stakeholders (phase 1,
resultsFindings support the value of a patient-representative model in providing support and advocacy for women affected by cervical cancer and their families, while also highlighting important considerations such as sustainability, integration with healthcare systems, and the need for inclusive representation.
conclusionThis study provides a case example of patient advocacy in action, offering transferable insights and strategies to inform patient-centred care and healthcare reform in other settings.
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.