scholarly journals Mobile Technologies and Cervical Cancer Screening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 617-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dongyu Zhang ◽  
Shailesh Advani ◽  
Jo Waller ◽  
Ana-Paula Cupertino ◽  
Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Pap Test ◽  
Mobile Telephone ◽  
Mobile Technologies ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Screening Uptake ◽  
Middle Income Countries

PURPOSE Cervical cancer screening is not well implemented in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Mobile health (mHealth) refers to utilization of mobile technologies in health promotion and disease management. We aimed to qualitatively synthesize published articles reporting the impact of mHealth on cervical cancer screening–related health behaviors. METHODS Three reviewers independently reviewed articles with the following criteria: the exposure or intervention of interest was mHealth, including messages or educational information sent via mobile telephone or e-mail; the comparison was people not using mHealth technology to receive screening-related information, and studies comparing multiple different mHealth interventional strategies were also eligible; the primary outcome was cervical cancer screening uptake, and secondary outcomes included awareness, intention, and knowledge of screening; appropriate research designs included randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental or observational research; and the study was conducted in an LMIC. RESULTS Of the 8 selected studies, 5 treated mobile telephone or message reminders as the exposure or intervention, and 3 compared the effects of different messages on screening uptake. The outcomes were diverse, including screening uptake (n = 4); health beliefs regarding the Papanicolaou (Pap) test (n = 1); knowledge of, attitude toward, and adherence to colpocytologic examination (n = 1); interest in receiving messages about Pap test results or appointment (n = 1); and return for Pap test reports (n = 1). CONCLUSION Overall, our systematic review suggests that mobile technologies, particularly telephone reminders or messages, lead to increased Pap test uptake; additional work is needed to unequivocally verify whether mhealth interventions can improve knowledge regarding cervical cancer. Our study will inform mHealth-based interventions for cervical cancer screening promotion in LMICs.

'Have a Pap smear!' – doctors, their clients, and opportunistic cervical cancer screening

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
L C Chingang ◽  
U Bischof ◽  
G Andall-Brereton ◽  
O Razum
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Pap Smear ◽  
Cervical Screening ◽  
Pap Test ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
High Incidence

In many middle-income countries with a high incidence of cervical cancer, organized screening programmes with the Pap test are being planned. We assessed the knowledge of, and attitudes towards, cervical screening among 63 doctors and 102 randomly selected community members in Trinidad where screening is still opportunistic. Doctors were well informed about cervical cancer, but not all knew the approximate specificity of the Pap test. Many did not routinely discuss the benefits and disadvantages of screening with their clients. Most women had heard of the Pap test, but only 56% knew its purpose; 25% would not participate in screening, stating reasons such as being in menopause or not having symptoms. More information about the aim of screening and the purpose of the Pap test must be communicated. Doctors need to keep their knowledge on screening up-to-date, and offer counselling that helps women to make an informed decision whether or not to participate in screening.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening methods in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex K. Mezei ◽  
Heather L. Armstrong ◽  
Heather N. Pedersen ◽  
Nicole G. Campos ◽  
Sheona M. Mitchell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Low And Middle Income

Barriers affecting uptake of cervical cancer screening in low and middle income countries: A systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Smita Asthana ◽  
Pradeep Devarapalli ◽  
Satyanarayana Labani ◽  
Narayanasetti Nagarjuna ◽  
Poonam Panchal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Low And Middle Income

scholarly journals Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. e001351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ping Teresa Yeh ◽  
Caitlin E Kennedy ◽  
Hugo de Vuyst ◽  
Manjulaa Narasimhan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Hpv Testing ◽  
Screening Uptake ◽  
Screening Frequency

IntroductionHuman papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling test kits may increase screening for and early detection of cervical cancer and reduce its burden globally. To inform WHO self-care guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of HPV self-sampling among adult women on cervical (pre-)cancer screening uptake, screening frequency, social harms/adverse events and linkage to clinical assessment/treatment.MethodsThe included studies compared women using cervical cancer screening services with HPV self-sampling with women using standard of care, measured at least one outcome, and were published in a peer-reviewed journal. We searched PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CNIAHL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and Embase through October 2018. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for non-randomised studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR).Results33 studies in 34 articles with 369 017 total participants met the inclusion criteria: 29 RCTs and 4 observational studies. All studies examined HPV self-sampling; comparison groups were standard of care (eg, Pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid, clinician-collected HPV testing). 93% of participants were from high-income countries. All 33 studies measured cervical cancer screening uptake. Meta-analysis found greater screening uptake among HPV self-sampling participants compared with control (RR: 2.13, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.40). Effect size varied by HPV test kit dissemination method, whether mailed directly to home (RR: 2.27, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.71), offered door-to-door (RR: 2.37, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.03) or requested on demand (RR: 1.28, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.82). Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in linkage to clinical assessment/treatment between arms (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.57). No studies measured screening frequency or social harms/adverse events.ConclusionA growing evidence base, mainly from high-income countries and with significant heterogeneity, suggests HPV self-sampling can increase cervical cancer screening uptake compared with standard of care, with a marginal effect on linkage to clinical assessment/treatment.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO CRD42018114871.

Clinical trial to implementation: Cost and effectiveness considerations for scaling up cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 4-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sujha Subramanian ◽  
Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan ◽  
Pulikkottil Okkuru Esmy ◽  
Jissa Vinoda Thulaseedharan ◽  
Rajaraman Swaminathan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Scaling Up ◽  
Implementation Cost ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Low And Middle Income
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document