Involving the community in cervical cancer prevention programs
Abstract
Underutilization of cervical cancer prevention services by women in the high‐risk age group of 30–60 years can be attributed to health service factors (such as poor availability, poor accessibility, and poor quality of care provided), to women's lack of information, and to cultural and behavioral barriers. The Alliance for Cervical Cancer Prevention (ACCP) partners have been working to identify effective ways to increase women's voluntary participation in prevention programs by testing strategies of community involvement in developing countries. The ACCP experiences include developing community partnerships to listen to and learn from the community, thereby enhancing appropriateness of services; developing culturally appropriate messages and educational materials; making access to high‐quality screening services easier; and identifying effective ways to encourage women and their partners to complete diagnosis and treatment regimens. Cervical cancer prevention programs that use these strategies are more likely to increase demand, ensure follow‐through for treatment, and ultimately reduce disease burden.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
To increase screening coverage, HPV testing has been offered to women via self-collection, removing the need for a pelvic exam, clinic setting and a trained provider.
“To increase screening coverage, HPV testing has been offered to women via self-collection, removing the need for a pelvic exam, clinic setting and a trained provider [12–17].”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Oketch, S. Y., Kwena, Z., Choi, Y., Adewumi, K., Moghadassi, M., Bukusi, E. A., & Huchko, M. J. (2019) · BMC Women's Health · doi:10.1186/s12905-019-0778-2 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
- Authors
- Agurto, I., Arrossi, S., White, S., Coffey, P., Dzuba, I., Bingham, A., Bradley, J., & Lewis, R.
- Affiliations
- World Health Organization Regional Office for the Americas (US)
- Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (FR)
- Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (US)
- EngenderHealth (US)
- Jhpiego (US)
- Corresponding author
- Agurto, I.
- Venue
- International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-03-05
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- S2
- Pages
- S38-45
- ISSN
- 0020-6695 (ISSN-L)
- 0020-7292
- 1879-3479
- OpenAlex
- W2162445849
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 3.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Keywords
- cervical cancer prevention, community participation, community partnerships, cervical cancer screening, health care access, health service quality, treatment follow-up, developing countries
- MeSH terms
- Ambulatory Care, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Community Health Services, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Kenya, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Patient Compliance, Teaching, Women's Health Services
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review