ArticleBMC primary care2025
Barriers to cervical cancer screening: a cross-sectional study of non-adherent Portuguese women.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cervical cancer and screening: Knowledge, attitudes, and adherence among university students in Italy.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Barriers to Accessing Cervical Cancer Screening and Treatment in the Amazon Region-A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Adherence to HPV-Based Cervical Cancer Screening: A Concept Analysis for Nursing and Midwifery Practice.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is preventable through effective screening programmes, yet adherence remains suboptimal in Portugal. This study aimed to explore the reasons for non-adherence to cervical cancer screening, including socio-demographic influences and women's perceptions, to inform targeted interventions.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among women aged 25-60 years identified as non-adherent to cervical cancer screening within a primary care unit in northern Portugal. Participants were randomly selected and recruited via telephone. Data collection included socio-demographic characteristics, screening history, reasons for non-adherence, and knowledge of cervical cancer.
resultsAmong 262 participants, 43.9% were not compliant with recommended screening intervals. The main barriers identified were lack of a healthcare provider's prescription (34.8%), personal discomfort or forgetfulness (17.4%), low health literacy (15.7%), and limited access to facilities (14.8%). Adherence was positively associated with higher education, access to private healthcare, and positive health self-perception, while lower education and overconfidence in symptom recognition were linked to reduced adherence.
conclusionNon-adherence to cervical cancer screening reflects a complex interplay of systemic, educational, and personal factors. Addressing these requires improved provider-patient communication, targeted health literacy initiatives, and enhanced service accessibility. Tailored public health strategies are crucial for reducing disparities and supporting national and WHO cervical cancer elimination goals.
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.