IntroductionCervical cancer is one of the major causes of disability adjustment years of women in developing countries (1). Approximately 87% of deaths from cervical cancer occur in less-developed countries. Among all malignant tumors, cervical cancer is one of the cancers that can be effectively controlled by organized screening programs. In this regard, Pap smear is a simple and cost-effective test for cervical cancer screening (2,3). It is reported that a regular Pap smear can reduce mortality by up to 80% (4). A study in Iran demonstrated that only 20% of women have never had this test, about two-third (68.7%) of them had this test only once in their life, and only 11.3% of them had taken a Pap test at standard intervals (5).People may indicate an unwillingness to take screening tests when they are in good health. In addition, performing regular screening tests heavily relies on motivational factors. Thus, motivational intervention (MI) is one of the ways to modify health-related behaviors. This method was introduced in 1983 by William Miller to change the drinking habit of alcoholic people. Further, it is a client-centered approach and helps identify and resolve behavioral ambiguity and reinforce the intrinsic motivation by discovering, identifying, and finding a specific solution (6, 7). There are reasons for the tendency to use MI in comparison to conventional methods in health-related practice (8). MIs directly eliminate resistance to change. Furthermore, they are flexible and can be used in combination with other treatments. Moreover, evidence supports the efficacy and impact of MI on physical and mental health issues. Finally, MI can be easily learned, and significant therapeutic effects can be achieved in a few sessions (9,10). Nevertheless, there is a lack of systematic reviews about the effectiveness of MIs on cervical cancer screening. Therefore, this study sought to systematically review the published intervention studies that examined the efficacy of MIs for improving cervical cancer screening among women. Materials and MethodsThis systematic review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of motivationally tailored interventions on cervical cancer screening behavior in women. Search StrategyAll published articles before September 2019 were assessed in this study. To this end, articles were reviewed from several electronic databases (i.e., Cochrane Abstract Objectives: Cervical cancer is preventable through cervical cancer screening. People may be unwilling to take screening tests when they are healthy, and performing regular screening tests largely depends on motivational factors. Accordingly, the present study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of motivationally tailored interventions on women's cervical cancer screening. Materials and Methods: In this systematic review, the electronic databases of the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for all interventional studies (i.e., trials, pre-and post-test, or quasi-experimental ones) publ...

BackgroundHaving regular screening tests largely depends on motivational factors. Motivational interviewing (MI) facilitates the movement through the stages of the transtheoretical model of change.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the effect of face-to-face and phone call MI on cervical cancer screening.MethodsThis experimental study was conducted on 150 eligible women referred to health centers in Tabriz, Iran. The women were assigned into 3 groups (face-to-face MI, phone MI, or control) using blocked randomization. The face-to-face MI group participated in 3 weekly group counseling sessions, and the motivational phone call group received 3 weekly phone calls. The participants completed the demographic and obstetric questionnaire and stages of change checklist. Adherence to Pap smear was checked, according to the health profile, 6 months after the intervention. The data were analyzed using SPSS24 software. Chi-square, homogeneity test, and sequential logistic regression by the generalized estimating equations were used.ResultsAfter the intervention, about 32% women from the face-to-face MI group, 22% from the motivational phone call group, and 4% from the control group underwent Pap smear screening (P = .002). There was no significant difference between the 2 interventional groups in Pap smear frequency (P = .36).ConclusionThe study results indicated that both face-to-face and phone call MI are effective in motivating women to have a Pap smear. Further studies are recommended to consider long-term follow-up (3–5 years).Implications for PracticeIt is recommended that healthcare providers use motivational phone call to encourage cancer screening behaviors.