Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28732037›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Integrating cervical cancer with HIV healthcare services: A systematic review.

Louise Sigfrid, Georgina Murphy, Victoria Haldane, Fiona Leh Hoon Chuah, Suan Ee Ong, Francisco Cervero-Liceras, Nicola Watt, Alconada Alvaro, Laura Otero-Garcia, Dina Balabanova and 7 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Association of Immunodeficiency and HIV Viremia With Cervical Precancer and Cancer Risk Among Women With HIV in South Africa.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

17 authors.

Louise SigfridCentre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Georgina MurphyCentre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Victoria HaldaneSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Fiona Leh Hoon ChuahSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Suan Ee OngSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Francisco Cervero-LicerasSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Nicola WattLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Alconada AlvaroUniversidad de Lleida, Lleida, Spain.
Laura Otero-GarciaNursing Section, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Dina BalabanovaLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Sue HogarthLondon Borough of Waltham Forest, London, United Kingdom.
Will MaimarisLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Kent BuseStrategic Policy Directions, UNAIDS, Geneva, Switzerland.
Martin MckeeLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Peter PiotLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Pablo PerelLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Helena Legido-QuigleySaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4113-4542

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is a major public health problem. Even though readily preventable, it is the fourth leading cause of death in women globally. Women living with HIV are at increased risk of invasive cervical cancer, highlighting the need for access to screening and treatment for this population. Integration of services has been proposed as an effective way of improving access to cervical cancer screening especially in areas of high HIV prevalence as well as lower resourced settings. This paper presents the results of a systematic review of programs integrating cervical cancer and HIV services globally, including feasibility, acceptability, clinical outcomes and facilitators for service delivery.

methodsThis is part of a larger systematic review on integration of services for HIV and non-communicable diseases. To be considered for inclusion studies had to report on programs to integrate cervical cancer and HIV services at the level of service delivery. We searched multiple databases including Global Health, Medline and Embase from inception until December 2015. Articles were screened independently by two reviewers for inclusion and data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias. MAIN

results11,057 records were identified initially. 7,616 articles were screened by title and abstract for inclusion. A total of 21 papers reporting interventions integrating cervical cancer care and HIV services met the criteria for inclusion. All but one study described integration of cervical cancer screening services into existing HIV services. Most programs also offered treatment of minor lesions, a 'screen-and-treat' approach, with some also offering treatment of larger lesions within the same visit. Three distinct models of integration were identified. One model described integration within the same clinic through training of existing staff. Another model described integration through co-location of services, with the third model describing programs of integration through complex coordination across the care pathway. The studies suggested that integration of cervical cancer services with HIV services using all models was feasible and acceptable to patients. However, several barriers were reported, including high loss to follow up for further treatment, limited human-resources, and logistical and chain management support. Using visual screening methods can facilitate screening and treatment of minor to larger lesions in a single 'screen-and-treat' visit. Complex integration in a single-visit was shown to reduce loss to follow up. The use of existing health infrastructure and funding together with comprehensive staff training and supervision, community engagement and digital technology were some of the many other facilitators for integration reported across models.

conclusionsThis review shows that integration of cervical cancer screening and treatment with HIV services using different models of service delivery is feasible as well as acceptable to women living with HIV. However, the descriptive nature of most papers and lack of data on the effect on long-term outcomes for HIV or cervical cancer limits the inference on the effectiveness of the integrated programs. There is a need for strengthening of health systems across the care continuum and for high quality studies evaluating the effect of integration on HIV as well as on cervical cancer outcomes.

Indexed as

FemaleHIV InfectionsHumansUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID28732037
PMCPMC5521786

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.