ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2025
Process Mapping to Compare and Improve Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results in Two US Healthcare Systems within the PROSPR Consortium.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 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.
- Mapping colorectal cancer screening workflows in primary care.BMJ public health · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines for management of abnormal cervical cancer screening results have increased in complexity over the past two decades. Little is known about how patient-, clinician-, and organization-level factors influence implementation when guidelines change. Process mapping may offer insights into organizational processes and facilitate visualization for potential intervention opportunities.
methodsWe conducted an iterative multimodal qualitative assessment to compare abnormal cervical cancer screening management between two health systems: a safety-net institution and an integrated health system. We interviewed clinicians and staff to generate (phase I, May 2019-March 2021) and validate (phase II, July-Oct 2022) process maps at both systems. We conducted a rapid and thematic content analysis and engaged clinical and nonclinical stakeholders during interpretation.
resultsAt both health systems, process maps informed by phase I participants (n = 31) identified a gap in care during patients' transition back to primary care following resolution of abnormal tests by gynecologists. In phase II, participants (n = 21) validated and revised maps, noting guideline updates and quality improvement initiatives. Although each system deployed unique strategies to address gaps in care, strategies in common included creating electronic health record-based clinical decision support tools, enabling gynecologists to provide real-time e-consults to primary care clinicians, and engaging patients via the portal.
conclusionsThe complexity of cervical cancer screening management guidelines elevates the importance of identifying system-level tools to support clinician decision-making and coordinate between primary and specialty care teams. IMPACT: Process maps are valuable in generating cross-system comparisons by documenting clinical workflows, identifying care gaps, and engaging participants in formulating potential interventions.
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.