ArticleInfectious agents and cancer2026
Motivations and hesitations for cervical cancer screening: considerations for scale-up of human papilloma virus (HPV) testing within HIV care in Zimbabwe.
Article in Infectious agents and cancer, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConsistent with WHO guidance Zimbabwe is transitioning from annual single visit screen-and-treat using visual inspection with acetic acid and cervicography (VIAC) to HPV testing every three years to screen women living with HIV (WLHIV) for cervical cancer.
methodsWe administered a questionnaire at three public-sector facilities in Zimbabwe to understand reasons why WLHIV accept or decline VIAC and preferences for implementation of HPV testing.
resultsA total of 451 WLHIV completed the questionnaire, of whom 414 (91.8%) accepted VIAC screening and 37 (8.2%) declined screening. Close to 50% of the 37 women who declined screening indicated a preference for HPV testing. The majority of WLHIV (76.3%) had known their HIV positive status for ≥ 5 years and nearly all (99.8%) were on antiretroviral therapy. Among the 414 WLHIV accepting VIAC screening, 323 (78.0%) were re-screening, and 91 (22.2%) were screening for the first time. WLHIV accepting VIAC re-screening were motivated by healthcare workers helping them feel secure about their health (45.8%), compliance with annual screening recommendations (39.6%), and encouragement from a healthcare worker (8.0%). Those accepting VIAC screening for the first time were motivated by encouragement from a healthcare worker (39.6%), compliance with annual screening recommendations (38.5%), and helping them feel secure about their health (17.6%). When asked what screening approach they would prefer in the future, the majority of women accepting re-screening (70.3%) and first-time screeners (89%) indicated a preference for continuing with VIAC screening. The 93 WLHIV with a screening history who indicated a preference for HPV testing were evenly split between preferring provider-collected sampling (13.9%) and self-collected sampling at the health facility (13.6%). Fear of physical discomfort of a pelvic exam (54.1%), worry about the screening result (13.5%), and perceived side effects of VIAC (10.8%) were the most common reasons given by the 37 WLHIV who declined VIAC.
conclusionsFacilities transitioning to HPV testing will need to incorporate client-centered education that acknowledges existing individual commitment to VIAC, explains the benefits of HPV testing, and offers HPV self-sampling for WLHIV who are hesitant to undergo a pelvic exam.
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.