Trial reportBMC women's health2026
Increasing cervical cancer screening participation: a cluster-randomized pilot study at a department of gynaecology.
Trial report in BMC women's health, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer remains largely preventable with vaccination and screening, yet nearly 40% of eligible Danish women did not participate in screening in 2023—accounting for about 45% of annual cervical cancer cases. This pilot study evaluated whether integrating two interventions into routine outpatient gynaecology could improve screening uptake among under- and never-screened women.
methodsIn this cluster-randomized study, women aged 23–64 years were assigned to one of three groups: Intervention A (digital pamphlet encouraging to request cervical cancer screening (CCS) during their visit), Intervention B (verbal encouragement to CCS by a gynaecologist), or Control (standard care). The primary outcome was CCS uptake during the outpatient visit. Participant experiences were assessed through a structured post-visit questionnaire including both closed and open-ended questions. Exact logistic regression estimated odds ratios (OR), confidence intervals (CI), and p-values.
resultsAmong 1810 participants, baseline screening uptake was 86.1%. Neither intervention significantly increased uptake compared to the Control Group: Intervention A (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.46–1.99; p = 0.917); Intervention B (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.51–1.89; p = 0.964). Among under-screened women, Intervention B showed a non-significant trend toward higher participation (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.57–2.50). Many participants expressed a strong preference for verbal encouragement and emphasized the value of being directly offered screening.
conclusionNeither intervention significantly improved screening rates in a hospital-based population with high baseline uptake. However, patient insights suggest that personalized, proactive communication could help overcome barriers. Future research should test these strategies in community settings with lower baseline participation for broader applicability.
trial registrationThe Region of Southern Denmark register (Case no 24/30143) and Scientific Ethics Committee, Region of Southern Denmark (case no 20232000–119).
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.