Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32185604›Full record

SynthesisCancer causes & control : CCC2020

Evaluating the implementation of cervical cancer screening programs in low-resource settings globally: a systematized review.

J Andrew Dykens, Jennifer S Smith, Margaret Demment, E Marshall, Tina Schuh, Karen Peters, Tracy Irwin, Scott McIntosh, Angela Sy, Timothy Dye

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

J Andrew DykensUniversity of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. aldiouma@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4194-8725
Jennifer S SmithUniversity of North Carolina School of Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Margaret DemmentUniversity of Rochester Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rochester, NY, USA.
E MarshallUniversity of Illinois at Chicago Institute for Health Research and Policy, Chicago, IL, USA.
Tina SchuhUniversity of Illinois at Chicago Institute for Health Research and Policy, Chicago, IL, USA.
Karen PetersUniversity of Illinois at Chicago Institute for Health Research and Policy, Chicago, IL, USA.
Tracy IrwinUniversity of Washington Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seattle, WA, USA.
Scott McIntoshUniversity of Rochester Department of Public Health Sciences, Rochester, NY, USA.
Angela SyUniversity of Hawaii John A Burns School of Medicine, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Timothy DyeUniversity of Rochester Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rochester, NY, USA.
University of Illinois Chicago · USUniversity of Rochester · USUniversity of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

ACL HHS U48DP005026CDC HHS 1U48DP005026-01S1NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005026
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCervical cancer disproportionately burdens low-resource populations where access to quality screening services is limited. A greater understanding of sustainable approaches to implement cervical cancer screening services is needed.

methodsWe conducted a systematized literature review of evaluations from cervical cancer screening programs implemented in resource-limited settings globally that included a formal evaluation and intention of program sustainment over time. We categorized the included studies using the continuum of implementation research framework which categorizes studies progressively from "implementation light" to more implementation intensive.

resultsFifty-one of 13,330 initially identified papers were reviewed with most study sites in low-resource settings of middle-income countries (94.1%) ,while 9.8% were in low-income countries. Across all studies, visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (58.8%) was the most prevalent screening method followed by cytology testing (39.2%). Demand-side (client and community) considerations were reported in 86.3% of the articles, while 68.6% focused scientific inquiry on the supply side (health service). Eighteen articles (35.3%) were categorized as "Informing Scale-up" along the continuum of implementation research.

conclusionsThe number of cervical cancer screening implementation reports is limited globally, especially in low-income countries. The 18 papers we classified as Informing Scale-up provide critical insights for developing programs relevant to implementation outcomes. We recommend that program managers report lessons learnt to build collective implementation knowledge for cervical cancer screening services, globally.

Indexed as

Acetic AcidDeveloping CountriesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningProgram EvaluationUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAcetic AcidCervical cancer screeningImplementationLiterature reviewPrevention

Identifiers

PMID32185604
PMCPMC7105425
OpenAlexW3011114583

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.