Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28873092›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Effect of cervical cancer education and provider recommendation for screening on screening rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jonah Musa, Chad J Achenbach, Linda C O'Dwyer, Charlesnika T Evans, Megan McHugh, Lifang Hou, Melissa A Simon, Robert L Murphy, Neil Jordan

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic 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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 127 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
127citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

127 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 215 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Cervical cancer survival times in Africa.Frontiers in public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  10. Barriers to and Facilitators of Cervical Cancer Screening among Women in Southeast Asia: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Jonah MusaHealth Sciences Integrated PhD Program, Center for Healthcare Studies, Institute of Public Health and Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7836-0976
Chad J AchenbachCenter for Global Health, Institute of Public Health and Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America.
Linda C O'DwyerGalter Health Sciences Library, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America.
Charlesnika T EvansDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Center for Health Care Studies, Global Health, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Megan McHughHealth Sciences Integrated PhD Program, Center for Healthcare Studies, Institute of Public Health and Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America.
Lifang HouDivision of Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America.
Melissa A SimonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Preventive Medicine and Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America.
Robert L MurphyCenter for Global Health, Institute of Public Health and Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America.
Neil JordanHealth Sciences Integrated PhD Program, Center for Healthcare Studies, Institute of Public Health and Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America.
Northwestern University · US

Funding

Pathology and Genomics CoreU54CA221205 · NCI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI MURPHY, ROBERT LEO · 2017 to 2021
$4.2M
Northwestern/Nigeria Research Training Program in HIV and Malignancies (NN-HAM)D43TW009575 · FIC · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI Chad J Achenbach, Jonah Musa · 2014 to 2026
$4.1M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW009575NCI NIH HHS U54 CA221205
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough cervical cancer is largely preventable through screening, detection and treatment of precancerous abnormalities, it remains one of the top causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality globally.

objectivesThe objective of this systematic review is to understand the evidence of the effect of cervical cancer education compared to control conditions on cervical cancer screening rates in eligible women population at risk of cervical cancer. We also sought to understand the effect of provider recommendations for screening to eligible women on cervical cancer screening (CCS) rates compared to control conditions in eligible women population at risk of cervical cancer.

methodsWe used the PICO (Problem or Population, Interventions, Comparison and Outcome) framework as described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook to develop our search strategy. The details of our search strategy has been described in our systematic review protocol published in the International Prospective Register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). The protocol registration number is CRD42016045605 available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?src=trip&ID=CRD42016045605. The search string was used in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Cochrane CENTRAL register of controlled trials to retrieve study reports that were screened for inclusion in this review. Our data synthesis and reporting was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). We did a qualitative synthesis of evidence and, where appropriate, individual study effects were pooled in meta-analyses using RevMan 5.3 Review Manager. The Higgins I2 was used to assess for heterogeneity in studies pooled together for overall summary effects. We did assessment of risk of bias of individual studies included and assessed risk of publication bias across studies pooled together in meta-analysis by Funnel plot.

resultsOut of 3072 study reports screened, 28 articles were found to be eligible for inclusion in qualitative synthesis (5 of which were included in meta-analysis of educational interventions and 8 combined in meta-analysis of HPV self-sampling interventions), while 45 were excluded for various reasons. The use of theory-based educational interventions significantly increased CCS rates by more than double (OR, 2.46, 95% CI: 1.88, 3.21). Additionally, offering women the option of self-sampling for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing increased CCS rates by nearly 2-fold (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.32, 2.22). We also found that invitation letters alone (or with a follow up phone contact), making an appointment, and sending reminders to patients who are due or overdue for screening had a significant effect on improving participation and CCS rates in populations at risk.

conclusionOur findings supports the implementation of theory-based cervical cancer educational interventions to increase women's participation in cervical cancer screening programs, particularly when targeting communities with low literacy levels. Additionally, cervical cancer screening programs should consider the option of offering women the opportunity for self-sample collection particularly when such women have not responded to previous screening invitation or reminder letters for Pap smear collection as a method of screening.

Indexed as

BiasEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth EducationHumansMass ScreeningPapillomaviridaePatient Education as TopicProspective StudiesQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID28873092
PMCPMC5584806
OpenAlexW2753548446

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.