Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41748489›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID2026

'Give People More Time and Take the Time to Explain Things Properly': Cervical Screening Experiences of People With Intellectual Disability.

Iva Strnadová, Julie Loblinzk Refalo, Rosalie Power, Caroline Basckin, Jane Ussher, Lauren Winkler, Heather Jolly, Deborah Bateson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Iva StrnadováSchool of Education, Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8513-5400
Julie Loblinzk RefaloSchool of Education, Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1350-6089
Rosalie PowerTranslational Health Research Institute (THRI), Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9434-3941
Caroline BasckinSchool of Education, Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0591-7769
Jane UssherTranslational Health Research Institute (THRI), School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2128-0019
Lauren WinklerThe Cancer Elimination Collaboration, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7283-232X
Heather JollyFamily Planning Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Deborah BatesonSpecialty of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1035-7110

Funding

Australian Government 2015215National Health and Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with intellectual disability have 70% lower cervical screening participation rates. Limited research has captured their experiences, particularly in Australia.

methodsThis qualitative study used inclusive co-production and trauma-informed approaches. Eleven people with intellectual disability (aged 26-65) from New South Wales participated in semi-structured interviews and arts-based body mapping, analysed using reflective thematic analysis.

findingsFour themes emerged: (1) healthcare interactions ranged from empowering to traumatic, with communication failures and rushed procedures; (2) tensions around informed consent and support roles; (3) gaps in accessible information and systematic reminders and (4) how past trauma and competing health priorities influenced screening. Participants recommended Easy Read materials, adequate appointment time, trauma-informed care and genuine choice in healthcare decisions.

conclusionsWomen with intellectual disability encounter systematic barriers to cervical screening encompassing communication failures, inadequate consent and lack of trauma-informed care. Their recommendations provide actionable solutions for healthcare reform.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerIntellectual DisabilityUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMiddle AgedNew South WalesQualitative Researchautonomycervical screeninghealthcare communicationintellectual disabilitytrauma‐informed care

Identifiers

PMID41748489
PMCPMC12945866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.