ArticleBMC public health2025
Barriers of organized cervical cancer screening in Albania and Montenegro.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. 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.
- Preventable, Yet Unprevented: The Cervical Cancer Screening Landscape in Eastern Europe and Bulgaria.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Barriers and Facilitators of Programmatic HPV Testing: Lessons Learnt From Two In-Depth Provincial Case Studies Ten Years After the Jujuy Demonstration Project in Argentina.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOrganized cervical screening is vital for preventing cervical cancer. However, many existing screening programs fail to achieve their full potential, as demonstrated by core performance indicators. There are barriers that hinder the implementation and reduce effectiveness of the programs. This article explores barriers of cervical cancer screening in two Southeastern European countries, Albania and Montenegro, aiming to inform targeted strategies to improve healthcare equity and outcomes for women.
methodsThe barrier assessment followed the EU-TOPIA framework, designed to identify barriers to effective breast-, cervical-, or colon cancer screening. This approach relies on an iterative process performed by country representatives responsible for screening and researchers with expertise in screening program planning and evaluation. It includes three steps: comprehensive description of screening activities; identification of key barriers via a previously published tool; and comprehensive assessment of the identified key barriers.
resultsThe barrier assessment revealed shared challenges in cervical cancer screening in Albania and Montenegro. Both countries face difficulties in their invitation systems, limited outreach activities, and low participation rates. Fully integrated data systems at national level are absent, hindering program monitoring and data sharing. Financial constraints and resource limitations negatively affect program sustainability and quality, reducing public awareness and accessibility. Additionally, neither country has comprehensive up-to-date long-term strategies to support prevention and early detection efforts.
conclusionsOur study underscores the importance of addressing organizational barriers in cervical cancer screening to improve program effectiveness and accessibility. Aligning screening practices with EU and WHO standards is crucial for Albania and Montenegro as prospective EU members. Lessons from international best practices, such as integrating IT systems, employing multi-channel outreach strategies, and adopting legally supported long-term policies, offer actionable pathways for improvement. Policymakers should prioritize sustainable funding, centralized systems, and innovative approaches to overcome structural challenges.
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.