ArticleBMJ global health2025
The role of non-medical providers in increasing access to cervical screening: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ global health, 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.
- How would Australian women and people with a cervix like to access self-collection for cervical screening? Screening preferences from a national survey.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Untimely follow-up after cervical cancer screening: A qualitative study among healthcare providers in Flanders (Belgium).PloS one · 2026Article
- Adherence to HPV-Based Cervical Cancer Screening: A Concept Analysis for Nursing and Midwifery Practice.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInvolving non-medical providers (NMPs) in cervical screening interventions could be a promising strategy to increase cervical screening participation among never or underscreened populations. We undertook a scoping review of published literature to explore the potential role of NMPs in increasing cervical screening participation.
methodsWe searched three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL) to identify relevant scientific research articles published between 2016 and 2024 and extracted data using a standardised extraction tool.
resultsOur review identified 35 studies (randomised controlled trials (RCTs): n=12, non-RCTs: n=23) from a breadth of geographical and country-level income settings including Australia and New Zealand (n=3), Africa (n=7), Asia (n=4), Europe (n=3) and North (n=15) and South (n=3) America. NMPs in the included studies were community health workers, nurses and midwives; and their key roles involved identifying and recruiting target populations, delivering health education and raising awareness of cervical screening, facilitating self-sampling and providing navigation and follow-up assistance. Most studies included screening participants aged ≥30 years, who were underscreened, not pregnant, from ethnic minority populations, and living in rural or remote communities. NMP-facilitated cervical screening interventions were largely feasible and acceptable among target populations. Compared with the standard of care, which did not involve NMPs, NMP-facilitated interventions generally demonstrated an increased uptake of cervical screening in RCTs (n=11 out of 12) with relative increases ranging from 1.11 to 42.73. In four RCTs, where NMPs facilitated self-sampling, cervical screening uptake rates ranged from 32.0% to 81.0%. Most non-RCTs (n=18) involved NMPs in facilitating self-sampling, with screening uptake rates ranging from 9.0% to 100.0%. Key strategies identified were capacity-building of NMPs through training, and employing outreach strategies to reach underscreened women.
conclusionNMPs could play a wider and an important role in cervical screening, particularly in the context of self-sampling and have the potential to increase access and equity in cervical screening.
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.