Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40887108›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2025

The role of non-medical providers in increasing access to cervical screening: a scoping review.

Monjura Nisha, Deborah Bateson, Marion Saville, Claire Elizabeth Nightingale, Claire Bavor, Karen Canfell, Megan A Smith

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Monjura NishaSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia monjura.nisha@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-9999-4476
Deborah BatesonSydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Marion SavilleAustralian Centre for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Claire Elizabeth NightingaleMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Claire BavorMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7981-7878
Karen CanfellSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Megan A SmithSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Community Health WorkersEarly Detection of CancerHealth Services AccessibilityProfessional RoleUterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleHumansCancerHealth education and promotionHealth PersonnelPrevention strategiesScreening

Identifiers

PMID40887108
PMCPMC12406914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.