ReviewPublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2026
Mapping community-based health promotion strategies for cervical cancer screening uptake: A scoping review of intervention components, delivery models and implementation gaps.
Review in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To map community-based health-promotion strategies used to improve cervical cancer screening uptake and to identify intervention components, delivery models, equity targets and implementation gaps. Study design: Scoping review. Methods: The review followed PRISMA-ScR and JBI population-concept-context guidance. PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, publisher pages, ClinicalTrials.gov-linked records and DOI records were searched from inception through 3 June 2026, with backward and forward citation chasing. English-language original intervention or implementation studies with a community-facing screening-promotion component were eligible. One reviewer screened all full texts, and two coauthors validated the final inclusion decisions. Data were charted and synthesized descriptively across intervention, outcome, implementation and equity variables. Results: Twenty-one original intervention or implementation studies were included in the evidence map. Nine contextual sources informed the background and five methodological sources informed review conduct but were not counted as included original evidence. Six recurring strategy families were observed: lay or peer workforce models, culturally tailored education, navigation and barrier reduction, HPV self-sampling, mHealth reminders and integrated outreach. Across heterogeneous designs, multicomponent approaches commonly linked trusted messengers, tailored communication, convenient screening access and active follow-up; no comparative effectiveness ranking was undertaken. Conclusions: Community-based cervical screening promotion can be designed and evaluated as a prevention cascade rather than as a one-time awareness activity. Future programmes should measure movement from engagement and access through screening completion, result delivery, triage and treatment linkage.
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.