Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34320957›Full record

ReviewBMC public health2021

Gaps and opportunities for cervical cancer prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care: evidence from midterm review of the Zimbabwe cervical Cancer prevention and control strategy (2016-2020).

Oscar Tapera, Anna M Nyakabau, Ndabaningi Simango, Bothwell T Guzha, Shamiso Jombo-Nyakuwa, Eunice Takawira, Angeline Mapanga, Davidzoyashe Makosa, Bernard Madzima

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

9 authors.

Oscar TaperaUniversity of Pretoria, School of Health Systems and Public Health, Pretoria, South Africa. oscar.tapera@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5916-4745
Anna M NyakabauRadiotherapy Centre, Parirenyatwa Group of Hospitals, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Ndabaningi SimangoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Parirenyatwa Group of Hospitals, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Bothwell T GuzhaCollege of Health Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Shamiso Jombo-NyakuwaCollege of Health Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Eunice TakawiraCancerserve Trust, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Angeline MapangaOrganization for Public Health Interventions and Development (OPHID), Harare, Zimbabwe.
Davidzoyashe MakosaMinistry of Health and Child Care, Directorate of Family Health, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Bernard MadzimaMinistry of Health and Child Care, Directorate of Family Health, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Funding

Organization for Public Health Interventions and Development N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer amongst women globally and it accounts for the majority of cancer deaths among females in Zimbabwe. The objective of this midterm review analysis was to identify the gaps and opportunities for cervical cancer prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and care to inform the next cervical cancer strategy in Zimbabwe.

methodsA mixed methods approach was used for the midterm review. Secondary data was collected from programme documents, published and grey literature. Primary data was collected in six provinces through key informant interviews with officials and focus group discussions with beneficiaries. After data analysis, a draft report was presented to a technical working group to validate the findings and to fill in any gaps.

resultsThis midterm review revealed a myriad of gaps of the strategy particularly in diagnosis, treatment and care of cervical cancer and the primary focus was on secondary prevention. There was no data to quantify the level of awareness and advocacy for cervical cancer prevention. Our results revealed that there was no data on the proportion of women who ever tested for cervical cancer which existed nationally. Our findings suggest that some health facilities were screening women above 50 years old using VIAC, which is an inappropriate approach for those women. Quality control of VIAC and treatment of precancers were not part of the strategy. Pathological services were not efficient and effective due to lack of resources and additionally data on investigations were not routinely collected and available at the national level. Other gaps identified were limited funding, human resources, equipment, and commodities as well as lack of leadership at the national level to coordinate the various components of the cervical cancer programme. There are also numerous opportunities identified to build upon some successes realized to date.

conclusionsOur findings emphasized the importance of effective and holistic planning in cervical cancer screening programmes in low-resource settings. In addition, huge investments are required in cervical cancer programmes and governments need to take centre role in mobilizing the requisite resources.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsDelivery of Health CareEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedZimbabweCervical cancerDiagnosisMidterm reviewMixed methodsPreventionStrategyTreatment and careZimbabwe

Identifiers

PMID34320957
PMCPMC8318330

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.