ArticleEuropean journal of public health2025
Perspective of pregnant women on feasibility of integrating cervical cancer screening into antenatal care in the Netherlands: a questionnaire study.
Article in European journal of public health, 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
backgroundDutch programmed cervical cancer screening starts at the age of 30, but efficacy is hampered due to low uptake, especially among youngest invitees aged 30-40 (< 50%). Currently, pregnant women are excluded from screening, but we hypothesize that participation could be increased if screening would be discussed routinely during obstetric care, motivating unscreened women to attend. Via this questionnaire study, we aimed to assess whether pregnant women in the Netherlands considered such "antenatal screening" acceptable.
methodsIn 2021 and 2022, a single written questionnaire was provided to pregnant women aged 30 years or older, undergoing obstetric care in the Rotterdam region, the Netherlands. Women were asked about previous screening attendance and perceived feasibility of antenatal screening, including benefits and harms. Primary outcome was the percentage of women considering antenatal screening feasible. Secondary outcomes included considered benefits and harms of antenatal screening and differences between adequately screened and un-/under screened women.
resultsIn total, 372 out of 1511 (24.6%) returned the questionnaire. Among respondents 106 of 372 (28.5%) were un-/under screened. Of all responders, 78% considered introduction of antenatal screening a good idea, without difference among adequately screened (78.9%) vs un-/under screened women (75%; P = .25). Benefits of antenatal screening considered most by respondents were a feeling of reassurance (58.5%) and easier scheduling (37.0%).
conclusionsIntroduction of cervical cancer screening via obstetric care is considered acceptable by a majority of pregnant women in the Netherlands. Benefits considered most were a feeling of reassurance and easier scheduling of attendance.
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.