ArticleBMC public health2026
Evaluation of a patient educational brochure to increase knowledge of cervical cancer screening among women living with HIV in La Romana.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Role of Emotions in Health Literacy and Patient Education: Trends, Technologies, and Future Opportunities-A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is among the most preventable human malignancies, yet it’s the second leading cause of cancer death among women in the Dominican Republic. Among those who are most at risk for cervical cancer are women living with HIV (WLH) who face a six-fold increased risk compared to the general population. Given patient barriers to uptake of cervical cancer screening, we created a patient-facing brochure on cervical cancer to be distributed within a clinic, Clínica de Familia, which serves WLH in La Romana, Dominican Republic. The goals of this paper are to summarize the findings of cognitive interviews conducted with women evaluating the brochure to assess the acceptability and perceived usefulness of this approach and provide recommendations for future educational materials on cervical cancer that can adequately address knowledge gaps among WLH and facilitate patient self-advocacy in a clinical setting.
methodsWe conducted cognitive interviews with 30 WLH at Clinica de Familia La Romana to examine the clarity of language, emotional reactions, and visual design, as well as the cultural adaptation of an educational brochure on cervical cancer screening and prevention. Interviews were analyzed through thematic analysis. Findings were guided by Health Information Technology Evaluation Model and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool.
resultsParticipant age ranged from 20 to 59 years with an average of 41 years (SD ± 11). The highest proportion of women (N = 9; 31%) reported that elementary school was their highest education level. Key qualitative findings included preference for different colors and styles, the need for more graphics to promote understanding and retention of information, and requests for further details about prevention methods. Positive feedback indicated printed learning materials in a clinical setting are a feasible way to share crucial information to support clarity, reactions, and design of patient educational material.
conclusionsThese findings will help guide future iterations of this brochure for distribution to WLH to promote cervical cancer screening. Future research should assess whether educational brochures lead to sustained health literacy about cervical cancer. Providers’ perspectives should be explored to understand how educational materials can be integrated into routine clinical practice and patient education. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.