Corrigendum to “Impact of a brief intervention on cervical health literacy: A waitlist control study with jailed women” (Prev. Med. Rep. (2017) 6 (314–321) (S2211335517300669)(10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.04.003))

Megha Ramaswamy, Jaehoon Lee, Joi Wickliffe, Molly Allison, Amanda Emerson, Patricia J. Kelly

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

1 Scopus citations


The authors regret an error in their original reporting of sample size, and thus the results. In the published paper, we conducted an analysis with 188 participants. The correct number should be 182. Four of the 188 women should have not been included in the analysis because they were duplicate participants (had done a pilot study and the main study that we reported on). One woman completed the study in the wrong group assignment. In addition, one woman completed the post-test four weeks after intervention completion although she should've completed it after one week. Thus, we should've excluded these six women from the analysis. Corrected Tables 1 and 2 that reflect these changes appear below. The error also necessitates the following corrections to the text: Abstract: When controlling for covariates, the intervention group had greater knowledge, less barriers, perceptions of seriousness, susceptibility to disease, and increased self-efficacy for cervical health screening and follow-up, compared to the control group (all p < 0.05). Results: Participants were on average 34 years old (SD = 9.50) (see Table 1). Half were White (n = 92, 50.6%), and a third were Black (n = 53, 29.1%). < 10% (n = 17) of women reported Latina ethnicity. Two-thirds (n = 115, 63.2%) had completed high school or more education, but only 18.9% (n = 34) were employed full-time prior to incarceration. Less than half of the participants had health insurance (n = 71, 39.0%), but most had access to a medical home or usual place of care (n = 125, 68.7%). Two-thirds of women (n = 124, 68.1%) reported a Pap screening in the past three years. Over half (n = 95, 52.2%) had a lifetime abnormal Pap test history, 14.8% (n = 27) had ever been diagnosed with HPV, and 13.2% (n = 24) had received a cervical cancer diagnosis in the past. Comparisons of cervical health literacy pre- and post-intervention showed that the intervention group experienced significant changes for seven out of eight domains, including increased knowledge about cervical health (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.33), more perceived benefits to screening (p < 0.01, d = 0.26), reduced barriers to screening (p < 0.001, d = 0.40), reduced perception of seriousness (p < 0.001, d = 0.37), reduced susceptibility to disease (p < 0.01, d = 0.37), and greater motivation (p < 0.001, d = 0.34) and self-efficacy (p < 0.001, d = 0.59) for seeking out cervical health screening and follow-up care (see Fig. 3). The control group only improved in terms of motivation for seeking out screening (p < 0.01, d = 0.36) at post-test. The changes were significantly different between the groups for knowledge (p < 0.5, d = 0.33), reduced barriers (p < 0.05, d = 0.32), perception of the disease's seriousness (p < 0.05, d = 0.36), susceptibility to disease (p < 0.05, d = 0.36), and self-efficacy (p < 0.05, d = 0.36). When controlling for covariates (pre-test cervical health literacy scores, education, health insurance, and access to medical home or usual place of care), the intervention and control groups were significantly different on five outcomes: increased knowledge (p < 0.05, partial η2 = 0.03); reduced barriers (p < 0.01, partial η2 = 0.05), perception of seriousness (p < 0.01, partial η2 = 0.05), susceptibility to disease (p < 0.05, partial η2 = 0.04), and increased self-efficacy for cervical health screening and follow-up (p < 0.01, partial η2 = 0.05) (see Table 2).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)303-305
Number of pages3
JournalPreventive Medicine Reports
StatePublished - Dec 2017


Dive into the research topics of 'Corrigendum to “Impact of a brief intervention on cervical health literacy: A waitlist control study with jailed women” (Prev. Med. Rep. (2017) 6 (314–321) (S2211335517300669)(10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.04.003))'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this