Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39257941›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2024

HPV self-sampling implementation strategies to engage under screened communities in cervical cancer screening: a scoping review to inform screening programs.

Madison M Fullerton, Caitlin Ford, Chelsea D'Silva, Bonnie Chiang, Se-Inyenede Onobrakpor, Holly Dievert, Huiming Yang, Jason Cabaj, Noah Ivers, Sandra Davidson and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

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

11 authors.

Madison M FullertonCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Caitlin Ford19 to Zero Inc., Calgary, AB, Canada.
Chelsea D'Silva19 to Zero Inc., Calgary, AB, Canada.
Bonnie ChiangAlberta Cervical Cancer Screening Program, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Se-Inyenede OnobrakporAlberta Cervical Cancer Screening Program, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Holly DievertAlberta Cervical Cancer Screening Program, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Huiming YangAlberta Cervical Cancer Screening Program, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Jason CabajPopulation and Public Health, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Noah IversWomen's College Hospital Institute of Virtual Care and Systems Solutions, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sandra DavidsonFaculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Jia Hu19 to Zero Inc., Calgary, AB, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as a method of cervical cancer screening can be performed by healthcare providers or by patients through self-sampling directly in the community, removing several barriers experienced by under screened populations. The objective of this scoping review was to determine which HPV self-sampling implementation and engagement strategies have been used to engage under screened populations (i.e., Indigenous, newcomer, and rural and remote communities) in cervical cancer screening. Methods: A scoping review was conducted searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and SocINDEX from inception to August 2023. The inclusion criteria were: (1) Indigenous, newcomer, and rural and remote communities; (2) countries identified as members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development; and (3) intervention included HPV self-sampling. The review was registered prior to conducting the search (https://osf.io/zfvp9). Results: A total of 26 studies out of 2,741 studies met the inclusion criteria. In-person engagement with trusted community leaders was the most widely used and accepted recruitment and engagement strategy across all three populations. Six out of seven studies with Indigenous communities distributed HPV self-sampling kits to eligible participants in person in a clinical setting for collection on site or at home. Similarly, nine of the identified studies that engaged newcomers recruited participants in person through the community, where eligible participants were either given a kit ( Discussion: HPV self-sampling through in person kit distribution and mail out of HPV self-sampling kits is an effective way to increase participation rates amongst under screened populations.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPapillomaviridaeSpecimen Handlingcervical cancer screeningcommunity engagementhuman papillomavirusscoping reviewself-samplingunder screened populations

Identifiers

PMID39257941
PMCPMC11384595

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.