Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32551354›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2020

Patients' self-reported factors influencing cervical cancer screening uptake among HIV-positive women in low- and middle-income countries: An integrative review.

Maryam Kasraeian, Kamran Hessami, Homeira Vafaei, Nasrin Asadi, Leila Foroughinia, Shohreh Roozmeh, Khadije Bazrfashan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Maryam KasraeianMaternal-Fetal Medicine Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Kamran HessamiMaternal-Fetal Medicine Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Homeira VafaeiMaternal-Fetal Medicine Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Nasrin AsadiMaternal-Fetal Medicine Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Leila ForoughiniaBox Hill Hospital, FRANZCOG, Eastern Health, Victoria, Australia.
Shohreh RoozmehMaternal-Fetal Medicine Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Khadije BazrfashanMaternal-Fetal Medicine Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences · IRRoyal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cervical cancer is among the most common causes of cancer-related deaths in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite the strong evidence regarding cervical cancer screening cost-effectiveness, its utilization remains low especially in high risk populations such as HIV-positive women. The aim of this review was to provide an overview on the patient-reported factors influencing cervical cancer screening uptake among HIV-positive women living in LMICs. We systematically searched EMBASE, PUBMED/MEDLINE and Web of Science databases to identify all quantitative and qualitative studies investigating the patient-reported barriers or facilitators to cervical cancer screening uptake among HIV-positive population from LMICs. A total of 32 studies met the inclusion criteria. A large number of barriers/facilitators were identified and then grouped into three categories of personal, social and structural variables. However, the most common influential factors include knowledge and attitude toward cervical cancer or its screening, embarrassment, fear of cervical cancer screening and test results, patient-healthcare provider relationship, social support, screening costs and time constraints. This review's findings highlighted the need for multi-level participation of policy makers, health professionals, patients and their families in order to overcome the barriers to uptake of cervical cancer screening among HIV-positive women, who are of special concern in LMICs.

Indexed as

BarriersCervical cancerFacilitatorsLow‐ and middle‐income countriesPatient-reportedScreening

Identifiers

PMID32551354
PMCPMC7292910
OpenAlexW3034052766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.