ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2025
Communicating abnormal cervical cancer screening results - a focus group study with general practitioners in Norway.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA gradual transition from cytology-based screening to Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing within the cervical cancer screening program has resulted in new routines for follow-up, and new challenges for communication of abnormal test results. General practitioners (GPs) have an important role in the screening program, as they are the primary performers of the screening test, they communicate test results to patients and refer them to a specialist if necessary.
objectiveThe study explores what consequences the introduction of HPV testing in the cervical cancer screening programme has for GPs' professional practice and communication with patients. DESIGN, SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Qualitative focus group study including 32 GPs in Central Norway who conduct screening tests within the cervical cancer screening programme.
resultsThe overall concern of the GPs was to communicate abnormal test results in a way that ensured appropriate follow-up, without causing unnecessary worry. Staying updated on revised screening guidelines and maintaining their role as medical experts when communicating results to patients could be challenging. GPs shared the responsibility for follow-up after an abnormal result between themselves, the women, and the screening programme. Reciprocal familiarity between GP and patient guided decisions about what and how to communicate, and how to balance the shared responsibility. GPs used their professional judgement to assess patients' informational needs and tailored information accordingly.
conclusionGPs manage the challenges of communicating abnormal screening results by sharing responsibility and using their professional judgement. Strengthening support and communication tools may enhance their role in the screening programme.
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.