↓ Skip to main content

Women’s Understanding of the Term ‘Pap smear’: A Comparison of Spanish-Speaking Versus English-Speaking Women

Overview of attention for article published in Maternal and Child Health Journal, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Women’s Understanding of the Term ‘Pap smear’: A Comparison of Spanish-Speaking Versus English-Speaking Women
Published in
Maternal and Child Health Journal, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10995-016-2057-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David L. Howard, Beth Soulli, Nicole Johnson, Saladin Cooper

Abstract

Objective To compare the understanding of the term 'Pap smear' among Spanish-speaking women, as compared to their English-speaking counterparts. Methods Surveys were distributed to English and Spanish speaking female patients in an urban Obstetrics and Gynecology clinic. Patients were at least 18 years old or they were less than 18 years old and pregnant. Results A majority of participants (77.3 % English-speaking vs. 74.1 % Spanish-speaking, respectively) were able to identify at least one correct descriptor for the term Pap smear. However, Spanish-speaking women were significantly less likely to choose incorrect descriptors. Spanish-speaking women were much less likely to say that a Pap smear was the same as a Pelvic exam (45.7 vs. 78.8 %; p = 0.001), or a test for a sexually transmitted disease (25 vs. 60.6 %; p = 0.001). Conclusions for Practice Compared to English-speaking women, Spanish-speaking women are much less likely to conflate a pelvic exam with a Pap smear. Overall understanding was suboptimal, regardless of primary language, indicating that major efforts are still needed to improve functional health literacy with respect to cervical cancer screening.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Researcher 3 9%
Librarian 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 8 25%
Unknown 8 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 28%
Psychology 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 December 2017.
All research outputs
#19,436,760
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#1,694
of 2,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,450
of 371,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#88
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.