Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39455985›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2024

Women's perspectives on the acceptability of risk-based cervical cancer screening.

Maali-Liina Remmel, Kadri Suija, Riina Raudne, Anna Tisler, Anda Ķīvīte-Urtāne, Mindaugas Stankūnas, Mari Nygård, Gunvor Aasbø, Laura Maļina, Anneli Uusküla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

10 authors.

Maali-Liina RemmelInstitute of Family Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tartu, Ravila 19, Tartu, 50411, Estonia. maali-liina.remmel@ut.ee.
Kadri SuijaInstitute of Family Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tartu, Ravila 19, Tartu, 50411, Estonia.
Riina RaudneInstitute of Family Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tartu, Ravila 19, Tartu, 50411, Estonia.
Anna TislerInstitute of Family Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tartu, Ravila 19, Tartu, 50411, Estonia.
Anda Ķīvīte-UrtāneInstitute of Public Health, Riga Stradiņš University, Dzirciema iela 16, Riga, LV-1007, Latvia.
Mindaugas StankūnasDepartment of Health Management, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, A Mickevičiaus g. 9, Kaunas, LT-44307, Lithuania.
Mari NygårdDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, P.O. box 5313, Oslo, Majorstuen, Norway.
Gunvor AasbøDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, P.O. box 5313, Oslo, Majorstuen, Norway.
Laura MaļinaInstitute of Public Health, Riga Stradiņš University, Dzirciema iela 16, Riga, LV-1007, Latvia.
Anneli UuskülaInstitute of Family Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tartu, Ravila 19, Tartu, 50411, Estonia.

Funding

EEA Grants/Norway Grants EMP416
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increased knowledge of cervical cancer (CC) risk factors and suboptimal performance of present screening programs has generated interest in shifting from a universal screening approach to one based on individual risk assessment. To inform the future development of risk-based CC screening programs, it is crucial to gain insight into the factors influencing the acceptability of such approach among screening target group women. The aim of this study was to prospectively investigate the acceptability of risk-based CC screening and to identify potential barriers.

methodsIn this qualitative study, one-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample including women aged 30-65 years to explore women's perspectives on the acceptability of risk-based CC screening. The study was conducted in Estonia, and interviews were conducted from March to September 2023. Potential participants were approached in person by a member of the study team or by their healthcare providers at primary care or gynaecology clinics. The interview guides were developed based on the concept of acceptability of healthcare interventions.

resultsTwenty participants (mean age 44.5, SD = 8.6) with diverse backgrounds were interviewed. The seven components of acceptability (affective attitude, burden, ethicality, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness, self-efficacy, and intervention coherence) were explored as key themes. Generally, women supported risk-based screening. However, we identified several factors that may compromise the acceptability of risk-based screening. The participants were reluctant to accept less intense screening for low-risk women and anticipated that if risk-based approach was implemented, more frequent testing would remain an option. Providing in-person clinician support was expected, requiring additional healthcare resources. Knowledge gaps in CC prevention highlighted the need for accessible information and education. Most women were unworried about sensitive data inclusion in risk score calculations. However, some participants were concerned about potential confidentiality breaches by healthcare workers.

conclusionThis study indicates that risk-based CC screening is acceptable, except for testing low-risk women less frequently. Our findings underscore the necessity for comprehensive understanding of the needs and concerns of the target group women for program development. Healthcare organizations are required to proactively address these needs by implementing comprehensive information dissemination and efficient communication approaches.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerPatient Acceptance of Health CareQualitative ResearchUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedEstoniaFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsAcceptability of healthcare interventions, qualitative researchCervical cancer screeningRisk-based screening

Identifiers

PMID39455985
PMCPMC11515292

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.