CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Empirical investigation of e-health intervention in cervical cancer screening: A systematic literature review

Open access
Romli, Rodziah, Abd Rahman, Rahana, Chew, Kah Teik, Mohd Hashim, Syahnaz, Mohamad, Emma Mirza Wati, Mohammed Nawi, Azmawati·2022·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0273375PMC PMC9390916
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Cervical cancer (CC) screening can detect the cancer early but is underutilized, especially among the developing countries and low- to middle-income countries. Electronic health (e-health) has the potential for disseminating health education and is widely used in the developed countries. This systematic literature review investigates the effectiveness of e-health intervention for improving knowledge of CC and the intention or uptake for CC screening. We followed the PRISMA 2020 guideline and registered with PROSPERO (registration ID CRD42021276036). We searched the Web of Science, Scopus and EBSCO Medline Complete databases for eligible studies. Studies that conveyed informational material through e-health intervention were selected. The results were analyzed using narrative synthesis, and the pooled estimates were calculated using meta-analysis. A total of six studies involving 1886 women were included in this review. The use of e-health aids alone led to increased knowledge. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the mixed-education method of e-health movies and video education with didactic sessions increased CC screening uptake. A random-effects model revealed that CC screening uptake following e-health interventions were almost double of that of their comparison (odds ratio = 2.29, 95% confidence interval: 1.28–4.10, p < 0.05). Various areas of study demonstrated e-health intervention effectiveness (minority communities, urban areas, rural areas). Health education through e-health intervention has huge potential for promoting CC screening in the community. Nevertheless, the use of appropriate frameworks, user engagement and culturally tailored e-health need to be prioritized.

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.0273375

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Website-based education can be effective if it is set up as a personalised, interactive service that offers points of contact to healthcare if needed.

    “Website-based education can be effective if it is set up as a personalised, interactive service that offers points of contact to healthcare if needed [47].”

    From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Discussion section ('The need for framework integration into e-health intervention'; page unavailable) says engaging e-interventions can be effective and culturally tailored narratives can enhance their effects. The Results ('Study characteristics'; page unavailable) describe the reviewed interventions as videos and films, not personalised, interactive websites. Our copy does not establish that offering contact with healthcare is a condition of effectiveness. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. [1]Cohen P.A., et al., Cervical cancer. The Lancet, 2019. 393(10167): p. 169– 182. 30638582
  2. [2]Smith R.A., et al., Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 2019. 69(3): p. 184– 210. doi: 10.3322/caac.21557 30875085 · DOI
  3. [3]Chew K.T., Kampan N., and Shafiee M.N., Perception and knowledge of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for cervical cancer prevention among fully vaccinated female university students in the era of HPV vaccination: a cross-sectional study. BMJ open, 2021. 11(12): p. e047479. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047479 34876417 PMC8655553 · DOI
  4. [4]Gönenç İ.M., et al., A review of knowledge and attitudes of young people on cervical cancer and HPV vaccination. Journal of Public Health, 2020. 28(1): p. 97– 103.
  5. [5]Wanderley M.d.S, et al., Students’ HPV vaccination rates are associated with demographics, sexuality, and source of advice but not level of study in medical school. Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo, 2019. 61. PMC6922017 31859847
  6. [6]Fisher W.A., et al., Barriers to human papillomavirus vaccine acceptability in Israel. Vaccine, 2013. 31: p. I53– I57. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.06.107 24229720 · DOI
  7. [7]Sundström K. and Elfström K.M., Advances in cervical cancer prevention: Efficacy, effectiveness, elimination? 2020, Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA. p. e1003035. PMC6986699 31990905
  8. [9]Curry S.J., et al., Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Jama, 2018. 320(7): p. 674– 686. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.10897 30140884 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [10]Wearn A. and Shepherd L., The impact of emotion-based mass media campaigns on stigma toward cervical screening non participation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2020. 50(5): p. 289– 298.
  10. [11]Thompson B., et al., Educating Latinas about cervical cancer and HPV: a pilot randomized study. Cancer causes & control: CCC, 2019. 30(4): p. 375– 384. doi: 10.1007/s10552-019-01150-w 30830494 PMC6459715 · DOI
  11. [12]Lyson H.C., et al., Social Media as a Tool to Promote Health Awareness: Results from an Online Cervical Cancer Prevention Study. Journal of cancer education: the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2019. 34(4): p. 819– 822. doi: 10.1007/s13187-018-1379-8 29948924 PMC6289895 · DOI
  12. [13]Park H.G., et al., The association between social media use for health related information and compliance with breast and cervical cancer screenings. Research reports (Montgomery), 2020. 4: p. e1– e14. 34278179 PMC8281882
  13. [14]Kelly J.T., et al., The Internet of Things: Impact and implications for health care delivery. Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. 22(11): p. e20135. doi: 10.2196/20135 33170132 PMC7685921 · DOI
  14. [15]Lewis J., Ray P., and Liaw S.-T., Recent worldwide developments in eHealth and mHealth to more effectively manage cancer and other chronic diseases–a systematic review. Yearbook of medical informatics, 2016. 25(01): p. 93– 108. doi: 10.15265/IY-2016-020 27830236 PMC5171554 · DOI · Paper page
  15. [16]Cheng C., et al., Applying the electronic health literacy lens: systematic review of electronic health interventions targeted at socially disadvantaged groups. Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. 22(8): p. e18476. doi: 10.2196/18476 32788144 PMC7453328 · DOI
  16. [17]Griebel L., et al., eHealth literacy research—Quo vadis? Informatics for Health and Social Care, 2018. 43(4): p. 427– 442. doi: 10.1080/17538157.2017.1364247 29045164 · DOI
  17. [19]Arbyn M., et al., Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. The Lancet Global Health, 2020. 8(2): p. e191– e203. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6 31812369 PMC7025157 · DOI
  18. [20]Moreno-Guerrero A.-J., et al., Internet Addiction in the Web of Science Database: A Review of the Literature with Scientific Mapping. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020. 17(8): p. 2753. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17082753 32316177 PMC7216291 · DOI
  19. [21]Basson I., Blanckenberg J.P., and Prozesky H., Do open access journal articles experience a citation advantage? Results and methodological reflections of an application of multiple measures to an analysis by WoS subject areas. Scientometrics, 2021. 126(1): p. 459– 484.
  20. [22]Falagas M.E., et al., Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB journal, 2008. 22(2): p. 338– 342. doi: 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF 17884971 · DOI · Paper page
  21. [23]Paige S.R., et al., Electronic health literacy across the lifespan: measurement invariance study. Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. 20(7): p. e10434. doi: 10.2196/10434 29986848 PMC6056742 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [24]Hewapathirana R., et al., ‘Hybrid Doctors’ Can Fast Track the Evolution of a Sustainable e-Health Ecosystem in Low Resource Contexts: The Sri Lankan Experience. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 2019. 264: p. 1356– 1360. doi: 10.3233/SHTI190448 31438147 · DOI
  23. [25]Green M.J. and Levi B.H., The era of “e”: the use of new technologies in advance care planning. Nursing outlook, 2012. 60(6): p. 376– 383. e2. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2012.08.005 23141197 PMC3548399 · DOI
  24. [26]Muljo H.H., et al., Mobile learning for early detection cancer. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 2018. 12(2): p. 39– 53.
  25. [27]Duong H.T. and Hopfer S., "Let’s Chat": Process evaluation of an intergenerational group chat intervention to increase cancer prevention screening among Vietnamese American families. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2021. 11(3): p. 891– 900. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibaa120 33290557 PMC12622224 · DOI
  26. [28]Thomas B., et al., A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 2004. 1(3): p. 176– 184. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2004.04006.x 17163895 · DOI · Paper page
  27. [30]RevMan, Review Manager (RevMan). 2020, The Cochrane Collaboration.
  28. [31]Chinn S., A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta‐analysis. Statistics in medicine, 2000. 19(22): p. 3127– 3131. doi: 10.1002/1097-0258(20001130)19:22&lt;3127::aid-sim784&gt;3.0.co;2-m 11113947 · DOI · Paper page
  29. [34]Higgins J.P., et al., Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj, 2003. 327(7414): p. 557– 560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 12958120 PMC192859 · DOI · Paper page
  30. [37]Ornelas I.J., et al., Results from a pilot video intervention to increase cervical cancer screening in refugee women. Health Education & Behavior, 2018. 45(4): p. 559– 568. doi: 10.1177/1090198117742153 29202606 PMC7012240 · DOI
  31. [38]Kessler T.A. Increasing mammography and cervical cancer knowledge and screening behaviors with an educational program. in Oncology Nursing Forum. 2012. doi: 10.1188/12.ONF.61-68 22201656 · DOI
  32. [39]Cooper E.C., et al., Implementation of human papillomavirus video education for women participating in mass cervical cancer screening in Tanzania. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2021. 224(1): p. 105. e1– 105. e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.07.018 32682861 · DOI
  33. [40]Abiodun O.A., et al., Impact of health education intervention on knowledge and perception of cervical cancer and cervical screening uptake among adult women in rural communities in Nigeria. Bmc Public Health, 2014. 14. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-814 25103189 PMC4133628 · DOI
  34. [41]Nagamma T., et al., Effectiveness of audio-visual and print media intervention on knowledge of cervical health among rural women in Southern India. The Nigerian postgraduate medical journal, 2020. 27(4): p. 343– 347. doi: 10.4103/npmj.npmj_148_20 33154288 · DOI
  35. [42]Mauco K.L., Scott R.E., and Mars M., Development of a Conceptual Framework for e-Health Readiness Assessment in the Context of Developing Countries, in Telehealth Innovations in Remote Healthcare Services Delivery. 2021, IOS Press. p. 68– 77.
  36. [43]Norgaard O., et al., The e-health literacy framework: a conceptual framework for characterizing e-health users and their interaction with e-health systems. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 2015. 7(4): p. 522– 540.
  37. [44]Shinta A.D., Salleh M.A.M., and Ali M.N.S., Analysis of the Moderating Effect of Media Literacy on Cervical Cancer Preventive Behaviours. Jurnal Komunikasi-Malaysian Journal of Communication, 2019. 35(1): p. 156– 170.
  38. [45]World Health Organization, Shanghai Declaration on Promoting Health in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 2016. Available online: Accessed, 2017. 23. 28180270

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Romli, R., Abd Rahman, R., Chew, K. T., Mohd Hashim, S., Mohamad, E. M. W., & Mohammed Nawi, A.
Affiliations
  • Ministry of Health (MY)
  • National University of Malaysia (MY)
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2022-08-19
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
e0273375
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0273375
PMC
PMC9390916
OpenAlex
W4292384884
Cited by
12
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
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, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (FF-2021-499)
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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
cervical cancer screening, digital health interventions, health education, screening uptake, cervical cancer knowledge, video-based health education, culturally tailored interventions, user engagement, minority groups
MeSH terms
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Electronics, Female, Health Education, Humans, Telemedicine, 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