ArticlePloS one2026
Untimely follow-up after cervical cancer screening: A qualitative study among healthcare providers in Flanders (Belgium).
Article in PloS one, 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
backgroundCervical cancer remains a global health burden despite being largely preventable through vaccination, screening, and timely treatment. Delays in follow-up after abnormal screening undermine the effectiveness of organized cervical cancer screening programmes. In Flanders (Belgium), organized screening and reminder systems exist, yet 17.7% of women do not receive adequate follow-up after an abnormal Pap smear, highlighting the need to understand multilevel factors influencing timely follow-up.
methodsBetween September and November 2025, 14 semi-structured group interviews were conducted in person with 120 general practitioners and gynaecologists responsible for cervical cancer screening in Flanders. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed in MaxQDA, using iterative thematic analysis combining deductive multilevel framework coding with inductive insights. Interviews were double-coded, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. Data collection and analysis proceeded concurrently until saturation and findings were validated with stakeholders.
resultsDespite the organized screening programme, healthcare providers experience cervical cancer screening follow-up as a complex, fragmented, and non-standardized multi-step pathway. Delays were mainly attributed to provider- and system-level factors, including inconsistent communication, challenges in interdisciplinary responsibilities and collaboration, high workload, and poorly integrated digital systems. Patient-related factors, such as language barriers and health literacy played a secondary role. Current follow-up processes were described as relying heavily on individual provider initiative rather than on well-coordinated, system-level structures. To improve timely follow-up, healthcare providers recommended standardised and proactive communication, clearer task allocation and responsibility, better integrated digital systems, the optimisation of the existing reminder mechanism and enhanced patient education.
conclusionDelays in follow-up primarily reflect organisational and system-level weaknesses. Standardization, integrated digital systems, and clarified roles and responsibilities are key to reducing preventable delays. A "double safety net" combining provider oversight with informed patient involvement, alongside greater primary care engagement, may further enhance the continuity and timeliness of follow-up care.
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.