The effect of multiple interventions for women at risk for cervical cancer on their health responsibility, beliefs regarding cervical cancer, and having screening: A randomized controlled experiment

Altınel, Büşra; Akin, Belgin

doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz250.055

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All 24 studies were published in peer-reviewed journals except one study, which was found as an abstract on a website [ 30 ]. The full text of two included studies could not be obtained [ 30 , 31 ] (Supplementary Table 3 ). Only three studies were published between 2000 to 2010 [ 32 – 34 ], while the rest were published between 2011 to 2021.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were five main types of interventions. We found 13 studies used counseling or health education [ 11 , 30 , 32 – 42 ]; two studies used reminding or invitation [ 12 , 43 ], three studies used messaging [ 44 – 46 ]; five studies used procedure (self-sampling HPV test) [ 13 , 31 , 47 – 49 ]; and one study for subsidized cost intervention [ 50 ] (Supplementary Table S 6 ). It was remarkably noted that the interventions in all studies were targeted at the women and there was no intervention targeted at community or health providers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies did not measure the primary outcome [ 37 , 40 ] and the other two studies [ 33 , 34 ] measured in the intervention arm only. One study reported the change (%) in uptake with no actual numbers [ 30 ] and one study did not measure any outcomes of interest of this systematic review [ 35 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Interventions to increase the uptake of cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To identify effective interventions to increase the uptake of cervical cancer screening (CCS) for low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, ISI Web of Sciences, Scopus, OVID (Medline), CINAHL, LILACS, CNKI and OpenGrey for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs conducted in LMICs from January 2000 to September 2021. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were conducted for data synthesis. Results We included 38 reports of 24 studies involving 318,423 participants from 15 RCTs and nine cluster RCTs. Single interventions may increase uptake of CCS when compared with control (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.82). Self-sampling of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing may increase uptake of CCS relative to routine Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.25). Reminding with phone call may increase uptake of CCS than letter (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.32) and SMS (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.13). Sending 15 health messages may increase uptake of CCS relative to one SMS (RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.46 to 5.19). Free subsidized cost may increase uptake of CCS slightly than $0.66 subsidized cost (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.33). Community based HPV test may increase uptake of CCS slightly in compared to hospital collected HPV (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.82). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combined interventions on CCS uptake relative to single intervention (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.14). Conclusions Single interventions including reminding with phone call, SMS, community self-sampling of HPV test, and free subsidized services may enhance CCS uptake. Combined interventions, including health education interventions and SMS plus e-voucher, may be better than single intervention. Due to low-certainty evidences, these findings should be applied cautiously.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%