CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 234Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 102 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Musa, Jonah, Achenbach, Chad J., O’Dwyer, Linda C., Evans, Charlesnika T., McHugh, Megan, Hou, Lifang, Simon, Melissa A., Murphy, Robert L., Jordan, Neil·2017·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0183924PMC PMC5584806
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0183924

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 PRISMA flow diagram.
Fig 1 PRISMA flow diagram.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 2 Forest plot of the pooled effects of theory-based educational interventions on cervical cancer screening rates.
Fig 2 Forest plot of the pooled effects of theory-based educational interventions on cervical cancer screening rates.CC BY · PubMed Central
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 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.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 4 Funnel plot assessment of publication bias in the studies on effectiveness of option for HPV Self-sampling on cervical cancer screening rates.
Fig 4 Funnel plot assessment of publication bias in the studies on effectiveness of option for HPV Self-sampling on cervical cancer screening rates.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 103 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2007
  2. CS Racey, 2015, Randomized Intervention of Self-Collected Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing in Under-Screened Rural Women: Uptake of Screening and Acceptability, Journal of women's health (2002)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–234 of 234

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Musa, J., Achenbach, C. J., O’Dwyer, L. C., Evans, C. T., McHugh, M., Hou, L., Simon, M. A., Murphy, R. L., & Jordan, N.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Musa, Jonah
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2017-09-05
Volume
12
Issue
9
Pages
e0183924
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0183924
PMC
PMC5584806
OpenAlex
W2753548446
Cited by
223
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2017-12-29)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Fogarty International Center (US) (D43TW009575)
  • National Cancer Institute (1 U54 CA221205-01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
cervical cancer screening, provider recommendation, screening rates, educational intervention, HPV self-sampling, HPV testing, theory-based intervention, women's health promotion, screening uptake, cervical cancer prevention, risk communication, health behavior change
MeSH terms
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Health Education, Humans, Mass Screening, Patient Education as Topic, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Bias, Treatment Outcome, Papillomaviridae, Early Detection of Cancer

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