ArticleCancer medicine2025
Follow-Up After Receiving Abnormal Results From Self-Sampled Colorectal and Cervical Cancer Screening Tests Among Underserved Patients.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIncreasing cancer screening through at-home self-sampling test modalities is a public health priority. Patients with abnormal screening results should receive diagnostic follow-up care; optimizing this process is a challenge. We conducted a mixed methods study to examine the cancer screening process among underserved patients who received abnormal results on a self-sampled cancer screening test.
methodsParticipants were drawn from a parent study examining the impact of self-sampled colorectal and cervical cancer screening tests among patients at federally qualified health centers in Pennsylvania. Those who had received abnormal results on their screening were completed a survey and semi-structured interview about their experience (n = 5). We conducted mixed methods analysis to examine participants' (1) understanding and follow-up care for abnormal results and (2) satisfaction with the self-sampling cancer screening process.
resultsQuantitatively, participants indicated very high satisfaction with each self-sampled cancer screening, and 60% preferred a self-sampled test for their next cancer screening. Qualitatively, participants differed in the extent to which they seemed to understand their screening results, but they were generally satisfied with the self-sampling process. In mixed methods analysis, participants' baseline knowledge about cancer screening supported better understanding of abnormal screening results, and participants' preference for their next cancer screening was related to their experiences with self-sampling.
conclusionsAmong this sample of patients who received abnormal results on their self-sampled colorectal or cervical cancer screening test, knowledge and understanding were not prerequisites for accessing follow-up care. Satisfaction with the self-sampling screening process was very high. These findings provide additional support for public health priorities to expand access to self-sampling cancer screening tests.
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.