ArticleBMC women's health2024
Barriers and facilitators of retention in care after cervical cancer screening: patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives.
Article in BMC women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent treatment outcomes of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in south western Uganda: a six year retrospective study.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators in access to cervical cancer secondary prevention in Cochabamba, Bolivia: a qualitative study of healthcare providers' perceptions.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Follow-up rescreening among women living with human immunodeficiency virus who tested positive and treated for cervical pre-cancer lesions in South Ethiopia.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators of adherence to cervical cancer screening follow-up among women living with HIV in South Ethiopia: a qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- A preference study for applying mHealth to improve the quality of cervical cancer screening management from a supply and demand perspective: a discrete choice experiment.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Depression and loss to follow-up among patients treated for premalignant cervical lesions at a tertiary hospital in Uganda: a cross-sectional study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Leveraging the role of families in decision-making to inform a program of HPV-based self-collection for cervical screening in Tamil Nadu, India: a qualitative study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Applicability of the levels of the socio-ecological model in the context of cervical cancer prevention: a scoping review.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Women's experiences and perspectives on a nurse navigation program for cervical cancer screening: a qualitative study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Health system challenges in the diagnostic and treatment pathway for patients with suspected cervical cancer: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Barriers in implementing cancer prevention programme in North Eastern India: A case study from Meghalaya.The Indian journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators of integrating cervical cancer screening into routine HIV care and acceptability of self-sampling for HPV DNA testing among people with HIV: an exploratory study in southern Ghana.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer continues to threaten women's health, especially in low-resource settings. Regular follow-up after screening and treatment is an effective strategy for monitoring treatment outcomes. Consequently, understanding the factors contributing to patient non-attendance of scheduled follow-up visits is vital to providing high-quality care, reducing morbidity and mortality, and unnecessary healthcare costs in low-resource settings.
methodsA descriptive qualitative study was done among healthcare providers and patients who attended the cervical cancer screening clinic at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital in southwestern Uganda. In-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed in line with the social-ecological model to identify barriers and facilitators.
resultsWe conducted 23 in-depth interviews with 5 healthcare providers and 18 patients. Health system barriers included long waiting time at the facility, long turnaround time for laboratory results, congestion and lack of privacy affecting counselling, and healthcare provider training gaps. The most important interpersonal barrier among married women was lacking support from male partners. Individual-level barriers were lack of money for transport, fear of painful procedures, emotional distress, and illiteracy. Inadequate and inaccurate information was a cross-cutting barrier across the individual, interpersonal, and community levels of the socio-ecological model. The facilitators were social support, positive self-perception, and patient counselling.
conclusionsOur study revealed barriers to retention in care after cervical cancer screening, including lack of partner support, financial and educational constraints, and inadequate information. It also found facilitators that included social support, positive self-perception, and effective counselling.
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.