Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Selection process of study according to PRISMA 2020 guideline.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Characteristics of studies in this review (n = 6).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Intervention tool’s component regarding e-health approach, users involvement, outcome conclusion, domains of the eHealth literacy framework and quality rating (n = 6).

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 2.

Comparison of effectiveness of e-health intervention on the knowledge score on CC and the uptake or intention of CC screening (n = 6).

[NA = Data Not Available].

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

A: Random-effects forest plot for studies eligible for meta-analysis regarding mean difference knowledge score on cervical cancer (n = 4). B: Random-effects forest plot for studies that used quasi-experimental & randomized control design study (n = 2). C: Random effects forest plot for studies that used pre-test and post-test design study (n = 2). D: Random effects forest plot for studies that only used an e-health intervention aid (n = 3). Box size represents study weighting. Diamond represents overall effect size and 95% CI.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Funnel plot regarding mean knowledge score on cervical cancer for studies eligible for meta-analysis (n = 4).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

A: Random-effects forest plot for studies eligible for meta-analysis regarding the uptake or intention towards cervical cancer screening (n = 4). B: Random-effects forest plot for studies evaluated the uptake of cervical cancer screening (n = 2). Box size represents study weighting. Diamond represents overall effect size and 95% CI.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Funnel plot regarding the uptake or intention towards cervical cancer screening for studies eligible for meta-analysis (n = 4).

More »

Fig 6 Expand