ArticleBMC public health2025
Individual-level characteristics and geospatial factors associated with cervical cancer screening participation in Alberta, Canada: a population-based cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC public health, 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.
- The progress in predictive modeling of post-stroke epilepsy.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide. Effective primary prevention with human papillomavirus vaccination and secondary prevention with screening can prevent most cervical cancer cases. Cervical cancer screening uptake varies among women in underserved populations. Research that adds to the understanding of the individual and geographic area-level characteristics of women and their screening status is valuable for public health intervention planning. This study aimed to identify these characteristics related to cervical cancer screening status.
methodsThe study population included women between the ages of 28 to 69 years in Alberta. Data was extracted from administrative health data sources and linked to the Alberta Cervical Cancer Screening Program database to determine screening status. Descriptive bivariate analysis was conducted to describe variations in cervical cancer screening statuses and individual-level sociodemographic, health system factors, and geographic characteristics. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship between these characteristics and screening participation. Geospatial analyses including heat maps were used to visualize variation in screening participation across the province. Getis-Ord Gi* hot-spot analysis was used to determine the location and magnitude of spatial autocorrelation.
resultsThe study included 933,965 eligible women. Compared with those who are currently up-to-date for screening, those who have no record of screening tend to be older (OR: 3.63; 95% CI: 3.57 to 3.70), reside in the South Zone (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.47 to 1.55), were health system non-users (OR: 2.95: 95% CI: 2.86 to 3.04), did not see a general practitioner (OR: 13.86; 95% CI: 13.32 to 14.43), or had no usual provider of care (OR: 3.227; 95% CI: 3.141 to 3.315). There are statistically significant hot spots of women who are overdue or have no record of cervical cancer screening in the North, Central, and Calgary Zones.
conclusionsThis study found that cervical cancer screening participation varied across geographical, health system and sociodemographic characteristics and identified clusters of regions with higher proportions of women who are under-screened in Alberta, Canada. Overall, these findings will help inform the design of interventions that aims to improve cervical cancer screening participation among underserved groups.
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.