ArticleBMC women's health2026
The effect of a cervical testing campaign on incarcerated females- a repeated cross-sectional study in Norwegian prisons.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncarcerated women face significantly elevated cervical cancer risks compared to the general population due to higher human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence, limited healthcare access, and socio-demographic vulnerabilities. Despite elevated risk, female inmates are substantially less likely to receive cervical screening. No studies examining cervical screening among incarcerated populations in Nordic countries have been identified.
objectiveTo examine risk factors for cervical abnormalities, screening experiences, HPV vaccination status, barriers to screening participation, and symptoms among incarcerated women in Norway before and after a cervical screening campaign.
methodsA repeated cross-sectional study was conducted in all three Norwegian prisons with women's wards using a researcher-developed questionnaire. Data were collected at baseline (January/February 2025, n = 77) and post-campaign (May/June 2025, n = 97). The campaign included informational materials, prison visits, and educational sessions. The questionnaire assessed demographics, risk factors, screening history, vaccination status, participation barriers, and symptoms. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests.
resultsMost respondents were aged 25-44 years, serving sentences under six months. High prevalence of risk factors was observed: tobacco/snus use (61.0%/53.9% at baseline) and multiple sexual partners (38.2% reported ≥ 5 partners). While 68.8% had prior cervical screening, only 19.6% received screening during incarceration. HPV vaccination rates were low (16.9%). Primary barriers included insufficient information (22.7% baseline, 33.8% post-campaign), fear of pain, previous trauma, and healthcare mistrust. Approximately one-third reported symptoms potentially indicating cervical abnormalities, most commonly persistent lower back pain (52% baseline, 65.6% post-campaign) and pelvic pain (36% baseline, 40.6% post-campaign). No statistically significant differences were observed between baseline and post-campaign responses.
conclusionsIncarcerated Norwegian women exhibit multiple cervical cancer risk factors yet face substantial screening barriers during imprisonment. The campaign demonstrated limited impact on screening uptake, suggesting comprehensive sustained interventions are needed. Future strategies should address structural barriers, ensure adequate follow-up care, and explore self-sampling approaches to reduce health disparities in this vulnerable population.
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.