A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

National institutions should improve the information made available to patients about cervical smears. | LitMetric

National institutions should improve the information made available to patients about cervical smears.

Patient Educ Couns

University College of General Medicine, Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, Lyon, France; UMR 5558, CNRS, The Biometry and Evolutionary Biology Laboratory (LBBE), Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, Lyon, France.

Published: December 2021

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study evaluated the quality of patient information leaflets and websites about cervical smears from UK and French national institutions.
  • The analysis revealed that informational tools lack clear evidence levels for screening studies and don't adequately address the effectiveness and potential risks of cervical cancer screening.
  • The conclusion emphasized the need for better-informed decision-making tools that include patient perspectives and are based on reliable scientific evidence.

Article Abstract

Objective: To assess the quality of the content of leaflets tools and websites of national institutions in United Kingdom and France informing patients about cervical smears.

Methods: We collected and analyzed the data and information on these two websites and leaflets made for patients. We screened those tools with the UP TO DATE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IPDAS grid.

Results: None of the tools specify the level of evidence of the studies on which cervix cancer screening is based. The risk of complication due to cancer is poor. The effectiveness of screening in absolute value is not available. The risks and side-effects due to cervical smears are specified without the frequency.

Conclusion: Information is truncated and pushes readers towards taking part in screening. This is not in accordance with the quality criteria of shared decision making.

Practice Implications: Patients should take part in the creation of decision making tools, so that the information is the most suited to their representations and understanding. This is why the documents made available by institutions should be based on recognized scientific sources. Responsible of health programs should be independent and separated from those responsible of information tool creation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.03.037DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

national institutions
8
patients cervical
8
cervical smears
8
institutions improve
4
patients
4
improve patients
4
smears objective
4
objective assess
4
assess quality
4
quality content
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!