Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37707939›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2023

A Model for Empowering Rural Solutions for Cervical Cancer Prevention (He Tapu Te Whare Tangata): Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Crossover Trial.

Beverley Lawton, Evelyn Jane MacDonald, Francesca Storey, Jo-Ann Stanton, Anna Adcock, Melanie Gibson, Varsha Parag, Ngaire Kereru Sparkes, Bobby Kaimoana, Frances King and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

20 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Beverley LawtonNational Women's Health Research Centre, Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2447-8386
Evelyn Jane MacDonald *National Women's Health Research Centre, Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4605-6192
Francesca StoreyNational Women's Health Research Centre, Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1281-555X
Jo-Ann StantonNational Women's Health Research Centre, Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8139-4694
Anna AdcockNational Women's Health Research Centre, Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9837-3061
Melanie GibsonNational Women's Health Research Centre, Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5043-8786
Varsha ParagNational Institute for Health Innovation, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6971-5782
Ngaire Kereru SparkesNational Women's Health Research Centre, Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0408-7639
Bobby KaimoanaQueen Street Practice, Wairoa, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4504-5421
Frances KingNgāti Porou Oranga, Gisborne, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7451-5209
Marion TerryQueen Street Practice, Wairoa, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6084-3666
Huti WatsonNgāti Porou Oranga, Gisborne, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5055-6081
Matthew BennettNational Women's Health Research Centre, Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8065-7907
Charles Seymour LambertNational Women's Health Research Centre, Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9729-6423
Stacie GellerCenter for Research on Women and Gender, College of Medicine, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7557-7184
Isitokia PaasiNational Women's Health Research Centre, Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6846-6208
Merilyn HibmaPathology Department, Otago University, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7918-613X
Peter SykesDepartment of Obstetrics &Gynaecology, Christchurch Medical School, Otago University, Christchurch, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6772-719X
David HawkesDepartment of Biochemistry and Pharmacology, The University of Melbourne, Australian Centre for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3882-801X
Marion SavilleAustralian Centre for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5924-446X
Victoria University of Wellington · NZUniversity of Otago · NZThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMāori are the Indigenous people of Aotearoa (New Zealand). Despite global acceptance that cervical cancer is almost entirely preventable through vaccination and screening, wāhine Māori (Māori women) are more likely to have cervical cancer and 2.5 times more likely to die from it than non-Māori women. Rural Māori residents diagnosed with cervical cancer have worse outcomes than urban residents. Living in rural Aotearoa means experiencing barriers to appropriate and timely health care, resulting from distance, the lack of community resourcing, and low prioritization of rural needs by the health system and government. These barriers are compounded by the current screening processes and referral pathways that create delays at each step. Screening for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) and point-of-care (POC) testing are scientific advances used globally to prevent cervical cancer.

objectiveThis study aims to compare acceptability, feasibility, timeliness, referral to, and attendance for colposcopy following hrHPV detection between a community-controlled pathway and standard care.

methodsThis is a cluster randomized crossover trial, with 2 primary care practices (study sites) as clusters. Each site was randomized to implement either pathway 1 or 2, with crossover occurring at 15 months. Pathway 1 (community-controlled pathway) comprises HPV self-testing, 1-hour POC results, face-to-face information, support, and immediate referral to colposcopy for women with a positive test result. Pathway 2 (standard care) comprises HPV self-testing, laboratory analysis, usual results giving, information, support, and standard referral pathways for women with a positive test result. The primary outcome is the proportion of women with hrHPV-positive results having a colposcopy within 20 working days of the HPV test (national performance indicator). Qualitative research will analyze successes and challenges of both pathways from the perspectives of governance groups, clinical staff, women, and their family. This information will directly inform the new National Cervical Screening Program.

resultsIn the first 15-month period, 743 eligible HPV self-tests were performed: 370 in pathway 1 with POC testing and 373 in pathway 2 with laboratory testing. The positivity rate for hrHPV was 7.3% (54/743). Data collection for the second period, qualitative interviews, and analyses are ongoing.

conclusionsThis Māori-centered study combines quantitative and qualitative research to compare 2 clinical pathways from detection of hrHPV to colposcopy. This protocol draws on rural community practices strengths, successfully engaging Māori from a whānau ora (family wellness) approach including kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face), kaiāwhina (nonclinical community health workers), and multiple venues for interventions. It will inform the theory and practice of rural models of the use of innovative technology, addressing Māori cervical cancer inequities and facilitating Māori wellness. The findings are anticipated to be applicable to other Indigenous and rural people in high-income countries.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12621000553875; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12621000553875. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/51643.

Indexed as

cervical intraepithelial neoplasiacolposcopyearly detection of cancerhealth equityIndigenous peopleMāoriNew Zealandpapillomavirus infectionspoint-of-care systemsprimary health careself-testinguterine cervical neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID37707939
PMCPMC10540018
OpenAlexW4386726590

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.