Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38378542›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2024

Barriers to cervical cancer screening in Africa: a systematic review.

Fennie Mantula, Yoesrie Toefy, Vikash Sewram

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
30.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Personal Networks and Cervical Cancer Screening among Black Immigrant Women.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Fennie MantulaAfrican Cancer Institute, Stellenbosch University, P.O Box 241, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa. fenniemantula1@gmail.com.
Yoesrie ToefyDivision of Health Systems and Public Health, Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, P.O Box 241, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa.
Vikash SewramAfrican Cancer Institute, Stellenbosch University, P.O Box 241, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa. sewramv@gmail.com.
African Institute for Mathematical Sciences · ZAStellenbosch University · ZAWestern Cape Department of Health · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAfrica has one of the highest burdens of cervical cancer in the world. The unacceptably high incidence and mortality rates could be reduced through implementing a comprehensive approach to its prevention and control that includes screening, which however, is low in most low-and-middle-income countries. Hence, this systematic review aims at exploring factors that prevent women from utilising cervical cancer screening services in the region.

methodsA mixed method systematic review was conducted. A search was performed on PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, CINAHL (EBSCOHOST) and Scopus databases for articles published until May 2019 without time, language or study design limits. Two reviewers critically appraised the included studies independently using the standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers. Results of the quantitative and mixed methods studies were transformed into qualitative data and synthesised using thematic analysis.

resultsFrom a potential 2 365 studies, 24 from 11 countries met the eligibility criteria and were selected; eight qualitative, 13 quantitative, and three that used the mixed-method approach. The primary barriers were identified as poor access to screening services, lack of awareness and knowledge on cervical cancer and screening, and socio-cultural influences. Service providers perceived lack of skills, screening equipment and supplies, and staff shortages as the major barriers to the provision of screening services.

conclusionBarriers to cervical cancer screening in Africa are multifaceted and require a holistic approach that will address them concurrently at the health system, individual, interpersonal, community and structural levels. Political will complimented by stakeholder involvement is required in the development and implementation of strategies that will ensure acceptability, availability, accessibility, and affordability of screening to minimise barriers in accessing the service.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerHealth Services AccessibilityUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAfricaFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CareAfricaBarriersCervical cancerCervical cancer screeningSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38378542
PMCPMC10877795
OpenAlexW4391987399

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.