Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24678898›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2014

Predictors of default from follow-up care in a cervical cancer screening program using direct visual inspection in south-western Nigeria.

Oliver Chukwujekwu Ezechi, Karen Odberg Petterson, Titilola A Gbajabiamila, Ifeoma Eugenia Idigbe, Olutunmike Kuyoro, Innocent Achaya Otobo Ujah, Per Olof Ostergren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Oliver Chukwujekwu EzechiClinical Sciences Division, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Lagos, Nigeria. oezechi@yahoo.co.uk.
Karen Odberg Petterson
Titilola A Gbajabiamila
Ifeoma Eugenia Idigbe
Olutunmike Kuyoro
Innocent Achaya Otobo Ujah
Per Olof Ostergren

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasingly evidence is emerging from south East Asia, southern and east Africa on the burden of default to follow up care after a positive cervical cancer screening/diagnosis, which impacts negatively on cervical cancer prevention and control. Unfortunately little or no information exists on the subject in the West Africa sub region. This study was designed to determine the proportion of and predictors and reasons for default from follow up care after positive cervical cancer screen.

methodWomen who screen positive at community cervical cancer screening using direct visual inspection were followed up to determine the proportion of default and associated factors. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of default.

resultsOne hundred and eight (16.1%) women who screened positive to direct visual inspection out of 673 were enrolled into the study. Fifty one (47.2%) out of the 108 women that screened positive defaulted from follow-up appointment. Women who were poorly educated (OR: 3.1, CI: 2.0 - 5.2), or lived more than 10 km from the clinic (OR: 2.0, CI: 1.0 - 4.1), or never screened for cervical cancer before (OR: 3.5, CI:3:1-8.4) were more likely to default from follow-up after screening positive for precancerous lesion of cervix . The main reasons for default were cost of transportation (48.6%) and time constraints (25.7%).

conclusionThe rate of default was high (47.2%) as a result of unaffordable transportation cost and limited time to keep the scheduled appointment. A change from the present strategy that involves multiple visits to a "see and treat" strategy in which both testing and treatment are performed at a single visit is recommended.

Indexed as

Lost to Follow-UpMass ScreeningAdolescentAdultEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNigeriaRisk FactorsUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID24678898
PMCPMC3986612

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.