ArticleCancers2026
Beyond Access and Awareness: The Role of Patient Experience and Physician Communication in Cervical Cancer Screening Participation in Hungary.
Article in Cancers, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTo evaluate cervical cancer screening participation among women in Hungary and to identify motivators, barriers, experiences, and social factors associated with screening attendance.
methodsA cross-sectional survey with nationwide recruitment was conducted between November 2023 and September 2024 using non-probability voluntary sampling through a patient-foundation campaign, social media and other online communication channels, and community-based distribution of paper questionnaires. The survey assessed cervical cancer screening participation, time since last screening, screening frequency, healthcare setting, screening-related experiences, and perceived motivators and barriers. Sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics, self-rated health, and communication about screening within the social environment were also collected. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and subgroup comparisons. Associations were evaluated using chi-square tests with effect sizes reported as Cramér's V. Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
resultsA total of 5196 women were included in the analysis. Overall, 59.8% reported screening within the past year, while 17.3% attended more than two years earlier and 3.5% never went for screening. Screening participation was highest among women aged 25-54 years and lower among younger and older age groups. Communication about screening within the social environment was associated with more recent and more regular attendance. The proportion reporting screening within the past year was highest among women aged 25-54 years and lower among younger and older age groups. Women who reported discussing cervical cancer screening within their social environment were more likely to report recent and regular screening attendance. Screening experiences were generally favorable, although physical and emotional aspects were rated less positively. The most frequently reported motivation for attending screening was consciousness/health awareness, whereas major barriers included negative healthcare experiences, limited access to services, cost of private care, fear of diagnosis, and time constraints.
conclusionsCervical cancer screening participation in this sample was high but varied across demographic, experiential, and social factors. Age and communication about screening were the factors most strongly associated with screening behavior, while structural barriers and negative healthcare experiences were common answers for reduced participation.
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.