ArticleBMJ global health2025
Early experience scaling up a breast cancer early detection initiative integrated with cervical cancer screening in Rwanda.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLate-stage breast cancer contributes to a growing number of deaths in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) but few studies examine scalable early detection strategies. Following small-scale pilots, in 2020 Rwanda launched an adapted Women's Cancer Early Detection Programme (WCEDP), integrating clinical breast exam (CBE) for symptomatic patients with cervical cancer screening. A WCEDP-specific electronic health record (EHR) was developed to facilitate patient tracking.
methodsWe used the RE-AIM implementation science framework to retrospectively evaluate implementation of breast cancer early detection within the WCEDP over 12 months in the first three scale-up districts (population: 2 009 888), using routinely-collected electronic and paper data from 15 health centres and 3 hospitals. We examined the WCEDP's Reach in the target population, Effectiveness linking patients to care, Adoption by facilities and fidelity to the Implementation protocol.
resultsRegarding Reach, average weekly health centre visits for CBE increased from 18 to 33 post-WCEDP launch; of 1688 women receiving CBE through the WCEDP, 12.0% were ≥50 years. Regarding effectiveness, among 383 women referred to district or referral hospitals, 157 (40.9%) had no documented referral facility visit. Of those seen at a referral facility, median days from health centre to district hospital visit and from district to referral hospital visit were 6 (IQR 1.8-14.8) and 8 (IQR 5.0-40.5) respectively. Among the 36 patients receiving biopsy, 72.2% were biopsied within 60 days of initial presentation. In terms of adoption, 79 clinicians were trained in cancer early detection, with 69.6% remaining at WCEDP facilities after 3 years. Regarding implementation fidelity, WCEDP clinics were held 52.6% of weeks. EHR data quality was inconsistent, with half of patients seen at district hospitals for breast care lacking EHR documentation.
interpretationBreast cancer early detection services can be implemented in resource-constrained SSA health facilities. Integration with cervical cancer screening may be a promising strategy. However, investing in data systems is critical to support programme evaluation and high-quality care.
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.