A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28873092/ below:

Effect of cervical cancer education and provider recommendation for screening on screening rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Review

. 2017 Sep 5;12(9):e0183924. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183924. eCollection 2017. Effect of cervical cancer education and provider recommendation for screening on screening rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations

Affiliations

Item in Clipboard

Review

Effect of cervical cancer education and provider recommendation for screening on screening rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Jonah Musa et al. PLoS One. 2017.

. 2017 Sep 5;12(9):e0183924. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183924. eCollection 2017. Affiliations

Item in Clipboard

Erratum in Abstract

Background: Although cervical cancer is largely preventable through screening, detection and treatment of precancerous abnormalities, it remains one of the top causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality globally.

Objectives: The objective of this systematic review is to understand the evidence of the effect of cervical cancer education compared to control conditions on cervical cancer screening rates in eligible women population at risk of cervical cancer. We also sought to understand the effect of provider recommendations for screening to eligible women on cervical cancer screening (CCS) rates compared to control conditions in eligible women population at risk of cervical cancer.

Methods: We used the PICO (Problem or Population, Interventions, Comparison and Outcome) framework as described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook to develop our search strategy. The details of our search strategy has been described in our systematic review protocol published in the International Prospective Register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). The protocol registration number is CRD42016045605 available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?src=trip&ID=CRD42016045605. The search string was used in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Cochrane CENTRAL register of controlled trials to retrieve study reports that were screened for inclusion in this review. Our data synthesis and reporting was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). We did a qualitative synthesis of evidence and, where appropriate, individual study effects were pooled in meta-analyses using RevMan 5.3 Review Manager. The Higgins I2 was used to assess for heterogeneity in studies pooled together for overall summary effects. We did assessment of risk of bias of individual studies included and assessed risk of publication bias across studies pooled together in meta-analysis by Funnel plot.

Results: Out of 3072 study reports screened, 28 articles were found to be eligible for inclusion in qualitative synthesis (5 of which were included in meta-analysis of educational interventions and 8 combined in meta-analysis of HPV self-sampling interventions), while 45 were excluded for various reasons. The use of theory-based educational interventions significantly increased CCS rates by more than double (OR, 2.46, 95% CI: 1.88, 3.21). Additionally, offering women the option of self-sampling for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing increased CCS rates by nearly 2-fold (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.32, 2.22). We also found that invitation letters alone (or with a follow up phone contact), making an appointment, and sending reminders to patients who are due or overdue for screening had a significant effect on improving participation and CCS rates in populations at risk.

Conclusion: Our findings supports the implementation of theory-based cervical cancer educational interventions to increase women's participation in cervical cancer screening programs, particularly when targeting communities with low literacy levels. Additionally, cervical cancer screening programs should consider the option of offering women the opportunity for self-sample collection particularly when such women have not responded to previous screening invitation or reminder letters for Pap smear collection as a method of screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

 Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Fig 2. Forest plot of the pooled…

Fig 2. Forest plot of the pooled effects of theory-based educational interventions on cervical cancer…

 Fig 2. Forest plot of the pooled effects of theory-based educational interventions on cervical cancer screening rates.

Fig 3. Forest plot summarizing the pooled…

Fig 3. Forest plot summarizing the pooled effect of offering the option for HPV self-sampling…

 Fig 3. Forest plot summarizing the pooled effect of offering the option for HPV self-sampling on cervical cancer screening rates compared to reminder invitation for Pap test or no intervention.

Fig 4. Funnel plot assessment of publication…

Fig 4. Funnel plot assessment of publication bias in the studies on effectiveness of option…

 Fig 4. Funnel plot assessment of publication bias in the studies on effectiveness of option for HPV Self-sampling on cervical cancer screening rates. Similar articles Cited by References
    1. Global Burden of Disease Cancer C, Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A, Hamavid H, Moradi-Lakeh M, et al. The Global Burden of Cancer 2013. JAMA oncology. 2015;1(4):505–27. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0735 . - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Allemani C, Weir HK, Carreira H, Harewood R, Spika D, Wang X-S, et al. Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995–2009: analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2). The Lancet. 2015;385(9972):977–1010. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)62038-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Forouzanfar MH, Foreman KJ, Delossantos AM, Lozano R, Lopez AD, Murray CJL, et al. Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis. The Lancet. 2011;378(9801):1461–84. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61351-2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Campos NG, Tsu V, Jeronimo J, Mvundura M, Kim JJ. Evidence-based policy choices for efficient and equitable cervical cancer screening programs in low-resource settings. Cancer Med. 2017. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1123 . - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. WHO. WHO guidelines for Screening and Treatment of Precancerous lesions for Cervical Cancer Prevention. WHO guidelines; 2013. - PubMed

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3