Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42877070›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Primary care2026

SMS text message reminders versus usual care for cervical screening attendance in London, UK: a retrospective secondary analysis of routinely collected data.

Beth Nichol, Josephine Ruwende, Jeff Powell Davies, Kaloyan Haralampiev, Christian Von Wagner, Aikaterini Grimani, Luke Vale, Ivo Vlaev

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Primary care, 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.

Beth NicholNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural and Social Sciences, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Josephine RuwendePublic Health, NHS England, London, UK.
Jeff Powell DaviesProject Analytics and Insights, NHS North of England Commissioning Support Unit, John Snow House, Durham, UK.
Kaloyan HaralampievDepartment of Sociology, Faculty of Philosophy, Sofia University St Kliment Ohridski, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Christian Von WagnerResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Aikaterini GrimaniNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural and Social Sciences, Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Luke ValeDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Ivo VlaevCentre for Behavioral and Implementation Science Interventions, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Queenstown, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Previous randomised controlled trials have shown that general practitioner (GP)-endorsed text message reminders can increase cervical screening attendance. Following the implementation of these reminders across routine primary care services in London (UK), we aimed to assess their effect on likelihood of cervical screening attendance when implemented at scale. Methods: In this retrospective secondary analysis of routinely collected data, all individuals aged 24-64 years who were eligible for cervical screening within participating GP practices in London between June 21, 2021, and March 11, 2024, were included. People who had opted out of the screening programme or the text reminder service, had had a cervical screening before the initial invitation letter, or were out of the age range at the time of the initial invitation letter (ie, aged <24 years or ≥65 years) were excluded. Attendance was compared between individuals who received a GP-endorsed SMS reminder and those who did not. The main outcome was odds of cervical screening attendance within the screening cycle. Routinely collected data were obtained from the text message provider and the National Health Application and Infrastructure Services (now the UK National Health Service Cervical Screening Management System). We used binary logistic regression to examine associations between SMS reminder delivery and attendance, adjusting for previous screening behaviour, age, and deprivation. Data on sex, gender, and ethnicity were not possible to include. Findings: Of the 3 530 557 individuals assessed for eligibility, 3 127 759 were included and 402 798 were excluded. 2 112 003 (67·5%) of the 3 127 759 individuals received an SMS reminder for cervical screening and 1 015 756 (32·5%) did not. 1 091 902 (51·7%) of the 2 112 003 individuals who received an SMS reminder attended a screening, which was an increase of 1·7 percentage points since the last screening cycle (1 055 287 [50·0%] of 2 112 003), whereas 253 556 (25·0%) of 1 015 756 individuals who did not receive an SMS reminder attended a screening, which was a decrease of 2·8 percentage points since the last screening cycle (282 484 [27·8%] of 1 015 756). Successful delivery of an SMS reminder resulted in an increased likelihood of cervical screening attendance (odds ratio 3·36 [95% CI 3·31-3·40]; p<0·0001). Interpretation: The findings indicate the potential effect of SMS reminders as a scalable component of cervical screening systems while emphasising the importance of digital reach, contact-data quality, and equitable implementation. Further research should evaluate differential effects considering demographic characteristics, including ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan of the Republic of Bulgaria.

Identifiers

PMID42877070
PMCPMC13662795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.