ArticleHeliyon2024
Breast and cervical cancer programs' success in maintaining screening during periods of high COVID-19: A qualitative multi-case study analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Breast and Cervical Screening Adaptability at a Federally Qualified Health Center.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Article
- Changes in Screening Test Volume in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program during the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2020-2022.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, most of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) funded programs (recipients) experienced significant declines in breast and cervical cancer screening volume. However, 6 recipients maintained breast and/or cervical cancer screening volume during July-December 2020 despite their states' high COVID-19 test percent positivity. We led a qualitative multi-case study to explore these recipients' actions that may have contributed to screening volume maintenance. Methods: We conducted 22 key informant interviews with recipients, screening provider sites, and partner organizations. Interviews explored organizational and operational changes; screening barriers; actions taken to help maintain screening volume; and support for provider sites to continue screening. We documented contextual factors that may have influenced these actions, including program structures; clinic capacity; and state COVID-19 policies. Results: Thematic analysis revealed crosscutting themes at the recipient, provider site, and partner levels. Recipients made changes to administrative processes to reduce burden on provider sites and delivered tailored technical assistance to support safe screening. Provider sites modified clinic protocols to increase patient safety, enhanced patient reminders for upcoming appointments, and increased patient education on the importance of timely screening during the pandemic. Partners worked with provider sites to identify and reduce patients' structural barriers to screening. Conclusion: Study findings provide lessons learned to inform emergency preparedness-focused planning and operations, as well as routine operations for NBCCEDP recipient programs, other cancer screening initiatives, primary care clinics, and chronic disease prevention programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.