Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31849036›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2020

HPV-based cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings: Maximizing the efficiency of community-based strategies in rural Kenya.

Megan J Huchko, Easter Olwanda, Yujung Choi, James G Kahn

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Megan J HuchkoDuke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Easter OlwandaCenter for Microbiology Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
Yujung ChoiDuke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
James G KahnDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Institutes for Health Policy Studies and Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Duke Institute for Health Innovation · USDuke University · USGlobal Policy Institute · USKenya Medical Research Institute · KE

Funding

Evaluating a community-driven cervical cancer prevention model in western KenyaR01CA188428 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HUCHKO, MEGAN J. · 2014 to 2018
$2.5M
National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of HealthNCI NIH HHS R01 CA188428
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo characterize the efficiency of screening through high-volume community health campaigns (CHCs) by comparing the costs and population reach and identify factors associated with gains in efficiency. Access to effective cervical cancer screening remains limited in low-resource settings, especially in rural areas. Periodic CHCs are a novel method of offering screening for HPV at lower costs and higher population coverage than health facilities.

methodsA micro-costing study was conducted within a cervical cancer screening trial to measure efficiency (cost per woman screened) and population uptake of HPV-based screening offered through CHCs in Migori County, Kenya between January and September 2016. Regression analysis assessed relationships between population size and efficiency. Structured observations and qualitative interviews identified implementation factors that affected efficiency in individual campaigns.

resultsCommunities screening through CHCs had costs per woman screened ranging from US $22.06 to $30.21. Efficiency was directly correlated to overall numbers of women screened, but not to proportion of population screened. Modifiable factors that acted as context-specific facilitators and barriers with a potential impact on efficiency were identified.

conclusionThere was substantial variation in efficiency among CHCs. Cultural factors, health beliefs, and poor coordination among implementation partners as potential key barriers to screening uptake were identified.

Indexed as

AdultCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth PromotionHumansKenyaMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsQualitative ResearchRural PopulationUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCervical cancer screeningCommunity-health campaignsHPV testingImplementation scienceKenyaSelf-collection

Identifiers

PMID31849036
PMCPMC9261489
OpenAlexW2994635300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.