SynthesisActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2026
Improving cervical cancer screening uptake through theory-informed education: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThis study examined whether theory-based education increases cervical cancer screening among underserved women.
methodsSeven databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) were systematically searched for studies published between January 2005 and November 2025. A total of 1,200 records were identified; after duplicate removal, 900 titles and abstracts were screened, and 200 full-text articles were assessed. Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis, and 12 trials contributed extractable binary outcome data for meta-analysis, including one study with two distinct intervention arms. The primary outcome was screening uptake (Pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid [VIA], or human papillomavirus [HPV] testing). Data extraction and quality appraisal followed PRISMA 2020 and Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models with Hartung-Knapp adjustment, and heterogeneity, prediction intervals, small-study effects, and certainty of evidence (GRADE) were evaluated.
resultsStructured educational interventions significantly increased screening uptake compared with usual care or minimal information (OR = 4.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.21-8.80). Subgroup analyses showed substantial effects in both high-income (OR = 3.46; 95% CI: 1.43-8.36) and middle-income settings (OR = 6.55; 95% CI: 2.74-15.63). Interventions frequently incorporated behavioral frameworks, such as the Health Belief Model, Protection Motivation Theory, and BASNEF model, and were often culturally tailored or delivered through community-embedded formats.
interpretationIntegrating such interventions into national and local screening programs represents an effective and equitable strategy to reduce disparities in cervical cancer prevention.
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.