ReviewFrontiers in oncology2025
Overview of female healthcare providers' outlooks on cervical cancer screening: a narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Provider attitudes and organizational support for cervical cancer screening implementation across PEPFAR-supported HIV clinics in Kenya.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to health management among patients receiving intravesical instillation.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and practices regarding the anti-inflammatory diet among the general population.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer is the second most frequent gynecologic cancer. Uniquely, it is easily preventable and treatable cancer if identified early. The insights of healthcare providers about cervical cancer screening have a crucial role in prevention and treatment. However, there has been limited literature on the providers' perspectives on cervical cancer screening. Objective: This review narrated the female healthcare providers' (FHCPs') outlooks on cervical cancer screening in terms of risk perceptions, awareness, knowledge, attitude, practice, and possible barriers. Methods: A thorough literature search was conducted to identify studies conducted on female healthcare providers' overview of the perceived risk of cervical cancer, cervical cancer screening awareness, knowledge, attitude, and practice, as well as barriers to cervical cancer screening. Databases such as PubMed, Medline, Embase, Virtual Health Library, and Google Scholar were used to search for articles. Results: Accordingly, this review identified that female healthcare providers have a low perceived risk of the disease, poor awareness and knowledge, unfavorable attitudes, and low uptake of screening practices. Furthermore, this review highlights the obstacles to cervical cancer screening acceptance, such as service inaccessibility, a lack of training and education, and fear of the procedure and results. Conclusion: This narrative review described the variable distribution of the FHCPs' perceived risk of acquiring cervical cancer (CC). Poor knowledge and screening practices were observed. Moreover, the barriers to cervical cancer screening uptake were described. Given that healthcare providers are on the frontlines (act as role models) in increasing the community's cervical cancer screening uptake, we suggest concerned bodies increase screening access and implement staff training programs. In addition, further mixed studies should be considered to deeply understand the possible attributes ingrained in individual and social belief systems.
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.