ArticleJAMA network open2026
Multiple Dimensions of Social Vulnerability and Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake.
Article in JAMA network open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Despite organized screening programs, persistent social inequalities undermine cervical cancer screening effectiveness in high-income countries, disproportionately affecting the most socially vulnerable women. Objectives: To identify distinct social vulnerability profiles among pregnant women and examine their associations with cervical cancer screening adherence and intraepithelial lesion detection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study assessed all pregnant women 25 years or older who delivered at Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal André-Grégoire, a single tertiary care maternity unit in France, between May 1, 2019, and May 1, 2025. Exposures: Social vulnerability was assessed across 15 indicators spanning administrative, psychological, and violence-related domains. Multiple component analysis and hierarchical clustering on principal components identified 6 distinct vulnerability profiles. Multiple logistic regression examined associations between profiles and cervical screening inadequacy (no cervical sample within the last 3 years, including those never screened) and squamous intraepithelial lesion detection, adjusting for maternal age and body mass index. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cervical screening inadequacy (primary outcome) and low- and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion detection (secondary outcome). Results: Among 18 253 women (median [IQR] age, 32.3 [29.1-36.0] years; median [IQR] body mass index, 25.9 [22.7-29.4]), 10 248 (56.1%) were up to date with screening. Six vulnerability profiles were identified. Compared with the low-vulnerability reference profile, all profiles showed increased odds of screening inadequacy: substance use and psychological vulnerability (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.20-1.48), migrant or linguistic barrier (AOR, 3.40; 95% CI, 3.16-3.66), psychological violence (AOR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.75-2.32), sexual violence (AOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.74-2.48), and physical violence (AOR, 2.54; 95% CI, 2.19-2.95). Violence-exposed and substance use profiles also had significantly higher proportions of women with a detected intraepithelial lesion despite reduced screening participation. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of pregnant women, distinct social vulnerability profiles were differentially associated with cervical cancer screening inadequacy; women with migration-related barriers experienced the greatest disadvantage, and violence-exposed women showed both reduced screening and elevated disease burden. These findings suggest profile-specific interventions could help reduce cervical cancer screening inequalities among socially vulnerable populations.
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.