Trends in, and predictors of, anxiety and specific worries following colposcopy: a 12‐month longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about which women are at greatest risk of adverse psychological after-effects following colposcopy. This study examined time trends in, and identified predictors of, anxiety and specific worries over 12 months. METHODS: Women attending two hospital-based colposcopy clinics for abnormal cervical cytology were invited to complete psychosocial questionnaires at 4, 8 and 12 months following colposcopy. General anxiety and screening-specific worries (about cervical cancer, having sex and future fertility) were measured. Generalised estimating equations were used to assess associations between socio-demographic, lifestyle and clinical variables and risk of psychological outcomes. RESULTS: Of 584 women initially recruited, 429, 343 and 303 completed questionnaires at 4, 8 and 12 months, respectively. Screening-specific worries declined significantly over time but were still relatively high at 12 months: 23%, 39% and 18% for worries about cervical cancer, fertility and having sex, respectively. Anxiety remained stable (20%) over time. Risks of cervical cancer worry and anxiety were both almost double in women without private health insurance (cervical cancer worry: OR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.25-2.61; anxiety: OR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.20-2.84). Younger women (<40 years) had higher risk of fertility worries. Non-Irish women had higher risk of anxiety (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.13-4.01). CONCLUSIONS: Screening-specific worries declined over time but anxiety remained stable. Notable proportions of women still reported adverse outcomes 12 months following colposcopy, with predictors varying between outcomes. Women in socio-demographically vulnerable groups were at greatest risk of adverse psychological outcomes. This information could inform development of interventions to alleviate psychological distress post-colposcopy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".