Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33183270›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2020

Breast and cervical cancer screening services in Malawi: a systematic review.

Chiara Pittalis, Emily Panteli, Erik Schouten, Irene Magongwa, Jakub Gajewski

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Health Screening: an Umbrella Review Across Conditions.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chiara PittalisDepartment of Public Health and Epidemiology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaux Lane House, Lower Mercer Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Emily PanteliDepartment of Public Health and Epidemiology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaux Lane House, Lower Mercer Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Erik SchoutenManagement Sciences for Health, P/BAG 398, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Irene MagongwaManagement Sciences for Health, P/BAG 398, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Jakub GajewskiInstitute of Global Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaux Lane House, Lower Mercer Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. jakubgajewski@rcsi.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0440-6051
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo identify and to assess factors enhancing or hindering the delivery of breast and cervical cancer screening services in Malawi with regard to accessibility, uptake, acceptability and effectiveness.

methodsSystematic review of published scientific evidence. A search of six bibliographic databases and grey literature was executed to identify relevant studies conducted in Malawi in the English language, with no time or study design restrictions. Data extraction was conducted in Excel and evidence synthesis followed a thematic analysis approach to identify and compare emerging themes.

resultsOne hundred and one unique records were retrieved and 6 studies were selected for final inclusion in the review. Multiple factors affect breast and cervical cancer service delivery in Malawi, operating at three interlinked levels. At the patient level, lack of knowledge and awareness of the disease, location, poor screening environment and perceived quality of care may act as deterrent to participation in screening; at the health facility level, services are affected by the availability of resources and delivery modalities; and at the healthcare system level, inadequate funding and staffing (distribution, supervision, retention), and lack of appropriate monitoring and guidelines may have a negative impact on services. Convenience of screening, in terms of accessibility (location, opening times) and integration with other health services (e.g. reproductive or HIV services), was found to have a positive effect on service uptake. Building awareness of cancer and related services, and offering quality screening (dedicated room, privacy, staff professionalism etc.) are significant determinants of patient satisfaction.

conclusionsCapitalising on these lessons is essential to strengthen breast and cervical cancer service delivery in Malawi, to increase early detection and to improve survival of women affected by the disease.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrognosisUterine Cervical NeoplasmsBreast CancerCancer screeningCervical CancerEarly detection of CancerMalawiPublic health

Identifiers

PMID33183270
PMCPMC7663900
OpenAlexW3102377687

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.