ArticleThe oncologist2026
Feasibility of decentralized cervical cancer survivorship care at district hospitals in Rwanda: a multi-site pilot implementation study.
Article in The oncologist, 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
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among women in sub-Saharan Africa, yet structured survivorship care remains concentrated in tertiary centers and is often inaccessible to survivors living far from oncology services. Decentralizing follow-up to district hospitals may reduce patient burden and improve continuity of care, but prospective implementation evidence from low- and middle-income country settings remains limited. We evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, safety, and patient burden of gynecologist-led district-hospital cervical cancer survivorship follow-up in Rwanda.
methodsThis prospective, mixed-methods, multi-site pilot study enrolled 12 cervical cancer survivors at 4 purposively selected district hospitals. Participants underwent quarterly gynecologist-led follow-up over 12 months. Prespecified implementation outcomes, guided by Proctor's taxonomy, included on-time visit completion within 14 days of the planned date as the primary feasibility metric, with a threshold of ≥80%; clinician and patient acceptability and appropriateness using acceptability of intervention measure (AIM)/ intervention appropriateness measure (IAM); clinician feasibility using feasibility of intervention measure (FIM); and visit-level protocol fidelity assessed by structured chart review. Safety was assessed through clinical record and referral documentation review. Patient travel time and transport costs were compared with self-reported pre-enrollment tertiary-center data. consolidated framework for implementation research-informed interviews explored contextual determinants.
resultsTwelve women were enrolled, with median age 69 years (interquartile range [IQR] 54-72) and FIGO stage II-IVA disease. Of 60 scheduled visits, 51 were completed within the prespecified 14-day window (85.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 73.4-92.9), meeting the feasibility threshold. Site-level on-time completion ranged from 66.7% to 93.8%. Acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility were high among clinicians and patients: clinician AIM 4.5, IAM 4.3, FIM 4.3; patient AIM 4.4 and IAM 4.2, with all respondents scoring ≥4. Visit-level protocol fidelity was low, with median fidelity of 64.2% (IQR 58.9-67.4), and only 4.3% of visits met the ≥85% threshold. No serious adverse events attributable to district-level follow-up were identified under passive surveillance. Median travel time decreased by 75%, and transport costs by 71%.
conclusionDistrict-hospital cervical cancer survivorship follow-up was acceptable, feasible, and reduced patient burden, but fidelity strengthening and prospective safety monitoring are needed before scale-up.
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.