Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

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

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

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

  • Jonah Musa ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    jonah.musa@northwestern.edu, jonahmusa2009@u.northwestern.edu, drmusaj@yahoo.com

    Affiliations Health Sciences Integrated PhD Program, Center for Healthcare Studies, Institute of Public Health and Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America, Center for Global Health, Institute of Public Health and Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Jos, Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria

  • Chad J. Achenbach,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Center for Global Health, Institute of Public Health and Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America

  • Linda C. O’Dwyer,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Galter Health Sciences Library, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America

  • Charlesnika T. Evans,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Preventive Medicine, Center for Health Care Studies, Global Health, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare (CINCCH), Department of Veterans Affairs, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois, United States of America

  • Megan McHugh,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Health Sciences Integrated PhD Program, Center for Healthcare Studies, Institute of Public Health and Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America

  • Lifang Hou,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America

  • Melissa A. Simon,

    Roles Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Preventive Medicine and Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America

  • Robert L. Murphy,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Center for Global Health, Institute of Public Health and Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America

  • Neil Jordan

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Health Sciences Integrated PhD Program, Center for Healthcare Studies, Institute of Public Health and Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America, Department of Preventive Medicine, Center for Health Care Studies, Global Health, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Science, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America

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

  • Jonah Musa, 
  • Chad J. Achenbach, 
  • Linda C. O’Dwyer, 
  • Charlesnika T. Evans, 
  • Megan McHugh, 
  • Lifang Hou, 
  • Melissa A. Simon, 
  • Robert L. Murphy, 
  • Neil Jordan
PLOS
x

Correction

29 Dec 2017: The PLOS ONE Staff (2017) Correction: Effect of cervical cancer education and provider recommendation for screening on screening rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 12(12): e0190661. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190661 View correction

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.

Introduction

Globally, 485,000 new cases of cervical cancer and 236,000 deaths due to cervical cancer occurred in 2013, ranking cervical cancer among the top 10 cancers in incidence and mortality globally. [1] The age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) for cervical cancer is much lower in developed nations at 5.0 per 100,000 compared to developing nations at 8.0 per 100,000. [1] Similarly, the age-standardized death rate (ASDR) for cervical cancer is lower in developed nations at 2.2 per 100,000 compared with developing nations at 4.3 per 100,000. [1] In fact, surveillance data on worldwide cancer survival shows wide variation between nations, and these data have been used as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems in cancer prevention, control and treatment. [2] For instance, a systematic analysis of breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010 found that developed countries with comprehensive cancer screening programs have recorded sustained declines in cervical cancer incidence and mortality while many developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa have experienced upsurges in new cases [3]. Even though there are ongoing efforts to increase human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations for primary cervical cancer prevention, early detection of precancerous cervical lesions through screening remains a critical health care service intervention for reducing cervical cancer incidence and mortality particularly in low-resource settings where HPV vaccination coverage is poor. [4] In comparison to developing countries with poor vaccination coverage and lack of organized cervical cancer screening programs, developed countries with well-organized cervical cancer screening programs have gained significant reduction in cervical cancer incidence and mortality. [2, 59] Indeed, since the introduction of the Papanicolaou smear cytology testing in the 1950s and 1960s, cervical cancer incidence and mortality have declined in the United States with organized cervical cancer screening programs and screening rates of 83%. [1012] However, Cervical cancer remains a huge burden in developing countries where cervical cancer screening rates are currently low, ranging between 6–8% [13, 14] These disparities in screening rates and HPV vaccination coverage might explain the differences in incidence and mortality associated with cervical cancer in different regions around the world.

The epidemiologic link between high-risk human papillomavirus types and cervical cancer have led to the development of novel screening modalities such as testing for high-risk human papilloma virus (HPV testing) screening recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance for Cervical Cancer Screening. [5, 15] Human papillomavirus testing has proven effective in detection of precancerous cervical lesions particularly in population-based cervical screening programs. [4, 1620]

Although the recommended screening modalities for cervical cancer have contributed to a significant reduction in cervical cancer incidence and mortality due to cervical cancer, the benefits of cervical cancer screening are yet to be fully realized in countries with poorly organized screening programs for women at risk. It is also noteworthy that even in countries with organized screening services, these benefits are not maximized in underserved, uninsured and under-represented populations due to factors such as cost, access problems, anxiety, discomfort with the screening procedure, and fear of cancer or poor health literacy, all of which contribute to poor outcomes for cervical cancer. [2125] Building health care systems that can address multiple factors simultaneously would improve cervical screening rates and overall outcomes for cervical cancer in populations at risk for this preventable cancer.

Previous reviews [11, 26, 27] on interventions to increase delivery and uptake of cervical screening have documented the effectiveness of provider reminders and invitation letters on uptake of cervical cancer screening. One of these reviews [11] focused on a range of interventions including invitations, reminders, education, message framing, counseling, risk factor assessment, procedures and economic factors. They found a significant positive effect of invitation letters on uptake of cervical screening. The review also found limited evidence to support educational interventions, but unclear on what format of educational intervention is most effective. Therefore the goal of this systematic review was to better understand the current evidence on the effect of cervical cancer education as an intervention to improve cervical cancer screening rates in women who are eligible for cervical cancer screening. We also sought to review the evidence of the effectiveness of provider recommendations for cervical cancer screening on screening rates in women at risk for cervical cancer.

Methods

Types of studies considered: In this review we considered randomized control trials, cluster randomized control trials and quasi-experimental designs of relevant interventions to increase cervical cancer screening in women at risk of cervical cancer. We included studies published through August 2016. There was no restriction on language, region, or country of study. The review protocol was published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with registration number CRD42016045605, which is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?src=trip&ID=CRD42016045605.

Types of Participants: All women eligible for participation in a cervical cancer screening program, including women with no prior screening for cervical cancer and women due or overdue for screening visits in various settings.

Types of interventions: In this review, we focused on 2 main types of interventions used to improve cervical cancer screening rates:

  1. Cervical Cancer Education. We included studies on any educational interventions aimed at increasing the participants’ knowledge about cervical cancer (causes, importance of screening, how screening is done and where to have screening done, including interpretation and treatment of abnormal screening tests). Educational interventions that are theory-based were considered. We also included non-theory-based education interventions such as didactic health talks. These educational interventions could be mediated through videos, use of culturally sensitive educational materials, letters with fact sheets on cervical cancer and screening, cervical cancer screening brochures, and call or text-message mediated education. We examined the effect of these interventions singly or in combinations in various settings where the interventions were implemented.
  2. Provider Recommendation. We included studies on interventions initiated by health care providers/health facility or screening programs aimed at encouraging eligible women to accept screening or to comply with screening guidelines set by the screening program. These interventions include provider initiated screening during opportunistic encounters with eligible women in a health facility setting, invitation letters from a health facility/screening program to eligible women with no prior screening or due for screening. We also included interventions such as reminder letters, phone calls, direct mailing of individualized letters or text-messaging to eligible women with screening past due. We also included interventions such as options for self-sample collections for HPV testing.

Comparison: Control conditions or routine standard screening practice in the setting.

Primary outcomes

The primary outcome measure of effectiveness was the proportion of eligible women exposed to the intervention or control who completed cervical cancer screening during the trial. In other words, cervical cancer screening rate was defined as the number of eligible women exposed to an intervention or control condition who had a screening during the intervention divided by the total number of women exposed.

Conceptual model for improving cervical cancer screening

The conceptual model guiding this review is adapted from the social ecological model (SEM) of health promotion proposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for implementation of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). [28] This conceptual model emphasizes the interplay of individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy-level interventions in increasing breast and cervical cancer screening in at risk population. The aspects of this model most relevant to this review include: individual, interpersonal, organizational and the community bands of the SEM. Each of these bands are briefly described below:

Individual: represented by the innermost band of the SEM rainbow refers to eligible women who need cervical cancer screening and will benefit from education on knowledge of cervical cancer risk, benefits of screening and how to access screening services.

Interpersonal: this band surround the individual band of the SEM and represents cervical cancer prevention activities implemented at the interpersonal level intended to facilitate individual behavior change by affecting social and cultural norms and overcoming individual-level barriers. In this review, health care providers, community health workers or promotoras, and patient navigators represents potential sources of interpersonal messages and support. Some of the relevant interventions appropriate for this level include: providers making screening recommendations to their patients, sending reminders about need for screening and patient navigators helping with logistical support and removing other barriers to screening.

Organizational: this band surrounds the interpersonal band of the SEM and represents screening activities initiated at the organizational levels (screening health facility or screening program). One of the activities at this level relevant to this review is the use of client and provider reminder systems to encourage recommendation and use of cervical cancer screening services.

Community: use of peer-educators and culturally-sensitive communication and education materials to encourage participation in cervical cancer screening activities.

Search strategy for identification of studies

We used the PICO (Problem or Population, Interventions, Comparison and Outcome) framework in developing the focused question. [29] Our search strategy was developed by study authors (JM, LO) and identified studies reporting education, provider recommendation, and cervical cancer screening in eligible women at risk of cervical cancer. The searches were run by LO in August 2016 in PubMed MEDLINE; Embase (embase.com); Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Wiley); and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley). Search strategies for the Embase and Cochrane databases were adapted from the PubMed MEDLINE search strategy. All databases were searched back to their inception and no language or date limits were applied. The detailed search strategy for identification of studies is available in the S1 Appendix.

Data collection and analysis

Selection of Studies: The titles and abstracts of all studies retrieved from electronic database searches were saved in EndNote libraries. After removing duplicates, the remaining titles/abstracts were screened independently by 2 authors (JM and CJA). The full-text of potentially relevant study reports were examined by two independent reviewers (JM and CJA) for eligibility and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Study reports that did not meet the review criteria were excluded with reasons for exclusion documented. Data abstraction from the articles included for review was done by JM and mutually agreed through discussion with the second reviewer (CJA). References of all articles included or excluded at the full-text review stage were entered into RevMan 5.3.

Data synthesis

The synthesis and reporting of our findings was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) statement. [30] In this review, we did a qualitative synthesis of studies for which statistical pooling was not appropriate. Qualitative synthesis entailed a brief narrative of the types of intervention, setting, country, eligible study population, main outcomes and a summary of the intervention effects and confidence intervals for each study report. Where feasible, statistical pooling of the effects of individual studies was done with meta-analysis using the RevMan 5.3 Review Manager software. The Higgins I2 statistic was used to assess for heterogeneity in studies pooled. Relevant forest plots were generated by RevMan 5.3 for graphic display of the individual study effects and the overall summary effect of the interventions on cervical cancer screening rates. We used odds ratio and random effects models to generate all statistical estimates of the individual and combined study effects of interventions in meta-analyses. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots generated by RevMan 5.3. The details of the items reported in this review are included in the PRISMA 2009 checklist in S3 Appendix.

Risk of bias assessment and quality grading of studies included

The risk of bias for each study was assessed either as low, unclear, or high risk for each of the following criteria: selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias and reporting bias as described in the Cochrane Handbook. [29] The assessment of the quality of included studies was based on the criteria of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and reporting bias as described in the GRADE Quality Assessment Checklist. [31]

Results

Our search yielded 4371 published articles (2101 in Pubmed, 1931 in Embase, 116 in Cochrane Systematic Reviews and 223 in Cochrane CENTRAL register of controlled trials). After removing duplicate publications, we had 3072 study reports for screening. After screening study titles/abstracts we found 73 potentially relevant articles for full-text review and consideration for inclusion, and 2999 were discarded because they did not meet the criteria for further review of full-text. After completing full-text review, 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-analyses of HPV self-sampling interventions, while 45 were excluded for various reasons (Fig 1).

For the two questions covered in this review, we included 28 studies (26 RCTs and 2 quasi-experimental design) involving a total of 241,219 participants from 15 countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, and USA) on 5 continents (Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe and North America).

Seven of these papers [3238] were included in assessing the effectiveness of cervical cancer education on cervical cancer screening rates. Twenty-one [3959] were eligible for inclusion in assessing the effectiveness of various aspects of provider screening recommendations on cervical cancer screening rates. The study reports on provider recommendations assessed interventions such as phone call reminders, invitation letters, reminder letters, appointment letters, and self-sampling for HPV testing.

What is the effect of cervical cancer education on cervical cancer screening rates?

To address the question of the effect of cervical cancer education on cervical cancer screening rates, our search strategy yielded seven (six RCTs and one community-based participatory RCT) studies. Two studies [33, 37] were excluded from statistical pooling of the overall effect because of variations in methodology that contributed to substantial heterogeneity. The other five studies [32, 3436, 38] were pooled together in meta-analysis involving a total of 797 women who were exposed to cervical cancer education and 812 women in the comparison group. Our meta-analysis results presented in Fig 2 found evidence of an increase in cervical cancer screening rates in women exposed to the intervention compared to the controls. The pooled summary effect of the interventions included was two and a half times higher in comparison to the control (OR = 2.46; 95% CI: 1.88, 3.21).

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

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183924.g002

What is the effect of provider recommendation for screening on cervical cancer screening rates?

For the question regarding the extent to which provider recommendations for cervical cancer screening increases screening rates, our search found 21 studies [3959] in which there were 19 RCTs and two quasi-experimental studies. There were subtle differences in implementation of the various interventions, such as combining invitation letters with phone call reminders and some educational messages; appointment letters and reminder letters with educational messages. These differences limited statistical pooling of the individual effects of these interventions in meta-analyses. However, we found a trend toward positive effects of the various provider-based interventions on cervical cancer screening rates.

First, we found 4 RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of phone call contact and other outreach modalities to increase CCS rates in women who were either due or overdue for Pap test screening in various settings. [3941, 55] Only one of these trials [40] found no significant difference in Pap smear screening uptake in women who received a telephone call reminder compared to a mail letter reminder (6.5% vs 5.8%) among women who initially did not respond to an invitation for a Pap smear screening. The other three RCTs showed consistent evidence of a significant increase in CCS rates among women who were exposed to the telephone outreach/recall/reminder group compared to other outreach modalities or usual care. [39, 41] The CCS rates were 34.4% in the phone contact group compared with 18.8% in the usual group, with significantly higher odds of women returning for screening when contacted by a direct phone compared to a personal letter (OR, 2.38, 95% CI: 1.56, 3.62). [39] Similarly, the CCS rates among women who received a phone call reminder for not having a Pap test in the previous 3 years was 41.4% compared with 10.0% in the usual care group. [41] Also, an RCT testing the real-world effectiveness of various outreach modalities found CCS rates in the control group were 21.4% vs 24.5%, 25.5%, 29.2%, and 36.1% respectively, in the letter, email, telephone and multimodal outreach groups. [55] Compared to women who received usual care, those in the multimodal (AOR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.4, 3.6) and telephone (AOR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1, 2.8) groups were more likely to receive a Pap test during the follow-up period. In addition, the telephone and multimodal interventions significantly reduced median time to Pap screening. [55]

The second group of provider interventions that are potentially useful for cervical cancer screening policy decision making on are related to either invitation or reminder letter/message to eligible women for screening. Our search found 6 RCTs [42, 4447, 56] and 1 quasi-RCT [43] that reported the effectiveness of invitation and reminder interventions on CCS rates in various settings. We found a consistently positive effect of various modes of invitation and reminder systems on CCS rates. One of these trials reported participation of 5.9% in women who received an invitation letter to screen, which was significantly higher than the 3.1% CCS rate in the control group. [42] After adjusting for other variables, women who were sent an invitation letter were significantly more likely to have had a Pap test within 6 months of the intervention than women in the control group (OR 2.6; 95% CI: 2.09–3.35). Another study investigated different models of invitation on CCS rate in a randomized population-based cohort in Germany and found significant differences in the proportion of women who received either invitation letter or invitation letter and information brochure compared to women who did not receive an invitation (91.8% versus 85.3%, p value <0.001; adjusted OR 2.69, 95% CI: 2.15, 3.37). [56] The effect of these invitation letters was more profound in women who were older, had lower education and migrant women. [42, 56] Other trials also found a significantly higher net gain in screening rates (OR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.24) [43] when invitation letters were sent to women who have not had Pap smear screening in the past 30 months, particularly among older women. [43] Invitation letters with a follow-up phone call reminder improved screening rates by almost two-fold (OR = 1.98; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.5). [44] Reminder letters given to patients and creating a reminder system for physicians significantly increase cervical screening rates more in women who have not had a previous Pap screening test (OR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.89). [46] Although one of the trials [45] did not find a significant difference in cervical screening rates in women sent a reminder letter after an initial invitation letter compared to women with no reminder letter (10.7% vs 6.3%), most of the studies found evidence of significant effects of reminders delivered to women through various modalities as a strategy to improve cervical cancer screening rates. Furthermore, one study [46] noted that once a primary care visit takes place, the behavior of the primary care provider with respect to recommending a screening test becomes an important determinant of cervical cancer screening use by eligible patients. Additionally, a trial among under-screened women randomized into a reminder letter group versus a no-letter group found a letter/no-letter Pap test rate ratio of 1.53; 95% CI: 1.42–1.65. [47]

The third group of provider interventions potentially useful for policy decision making in our review were those in which appointment letters stating the screening visit dates were sent to eligible women compared to women with no appointment letters (44.7% vs 25.8% screening uptake, respectively) [48]; and provider recommendations offering to screen eligible women when they present in urgent care settings compared to referral to a gynecology clinic for screening (84.7% vs 29.0% screening uptake, respectively). [49]

The fourth group of provider interventions potentially useful for policy decisions in cervical cancer screening programs are those offering eligible women the option for HPV self-sampling. Our search found eight trials that reported the effectiveness of these interventions in increasing CCS rates in various settings. [5054, 5759]

The individual effects of these trials involving 22,256 women who were offered the option for HPV self-sampling as an intervention, and 18,312 women in the comparison group on CCS rate were pooled in meta-analysis. We found an overall summary effect of almost a two-fold higher likelihood of having a CCS in women exposed to the intervention compared to the comparison, OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.32, 2.22 (Fig 3). The funnel plot in Fig 4 did not suggest evidence of publication bias in the studies included in this meta-analysis.

thumbnail
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.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183924.g003

thumbnail
Fig 4. Funnel plot assessment of publication bias in the studies on effectiveness of option for HPV Self-sampling on cervical cancer screening rates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183924.g004

Risk of bias assessment and quality grade of studies included

Except for six of the included studies [32, 34, 36, 42, 43, 48] judged to have high-risk of bias and graded as low quality, the studies included in this review and meta-analysis were judged to have low-risk of bias with moderate to high quality grade. The details of characteristics of each study, risk of bias assessment for each study included, and reference list of studies included and excluded is available in S2 Appendix.

The summary of the studies included in this review is presented in Table 1.

The following studies [6099] were excluded at the full-text review stage for specific reasons. The reasons for exclusion have been summarized in S1 Appendix in the section on characteristics of excluded studies.

Discussion

The principal findings of this review are that theory-based educational interventions and use of culturally sensitive languages in communities with low participation rates for cervical cancer screening are effective interventions that significantly improve cervical cancer screening rates. The pooled effects of five studies (see Fig 2) on cervical cancer educational interventions showed an overall effect of 2.5 times higher likelihood for women in the intervention groups to have a CCS compared to women in the comparison groups. We also found that invitation letters to women either alone or with a follow up telephone reminder significantly increased CCS rates in various screening populations. Additionally, we found that offering options for self-sample collection for HPV testing increased the likelihood of women completing a CCS by almost two-fold compared to women who received a reminder invitation for Pap test screening, particularly among unscreened and under-screened women and among non-compliant women who have not responded to prior invitations for Pap smear screening. [50, 52]

Cervical cancer education

One of the effective, theory-based educational interventions within the studies reviewed was guided by the social cognitive framework. This theory posits that knowledge of health risks and benefits creates the precondition for change and if people lack knowledge about how their lifestyle habits affect their health, they have few reasons to put themselves through the travail of changing those detrimental habits. [100, 101] Additionally, the Health Behavior Framework, which emphasizes that individual and health care system factors and environmental and personal barriers jointly determine health behaviors, was used in designing an educational intervention to increase cervical cancer screening rates among Samoan women. [36] These theory-based educational interventions are particularly relevant for developing communities with low literacy levels as was demonstrated in the intervention communities of the studies in this review. Our findings showed a consistent positive effect of the use of theory-based, culturally and linguistically-sensitive, community-participatory modeled educational interventions. These interventions increased women awareness, knowledge of cervical cancer, importance of screening, and offered barrier counseling and guidance with scheduling screening appointments thereby increasing the overall likelihood of eligible women to have Pap smear screening. [32, 3436, 38] Based on the quality assessment of these trials, we have confidence in the findings and recommend that educational interventions to increase participation of women in cervical screening programs should be based on theory and use of culturally sensitive language tailored to specific communities. Delivering didactic health talks could increase women’s awareness and knowledge of cervical cancer, but does not necessarily translate to increased cervical screening rates, as found in one of the trials in rural Kenya. [33]

Invitation letter, appointment letter, and phone calls

Our findings suggest that strategies utilizing a combination of invitation letters, including an information pamphlet on cervical cancer and Pap test and additional telephone reminders with a short description of the importance of the Pap smear test, demonstrated a positive effect on cervical screening rates. [41, 44] The critical role of a reminder phone call compared to invitation letter alone was demonstrated in one trial, which found a significant effect on screening rates in women due for a follow up Pap smear. [39] Indeed, a prior trial on the effectiveness of a call/recall system in improving compliance with cervical cancer screening found that a letter of invitation alone was not enough to encourage women who have never or have infrequently undergone a Pap test to come for cervical cancer screening, and more aggressive follow up efforts with phone reminders and offering screening on specific appointment dates might be required to improve screening rates in such populations. [45] However, the application of these findings will depend on the setting. For example, screening programs targeting hard-to-reach women in rural areas with poorly organized postal systems may find the use of a telephone strategy more feasible than a mailed invitation letter. Sending invitation letters may be more applicable in settings with well-organized postal systems, as supported by the trial done in Manitoba, Canada where invitation letters were sent to unscreened women using a forward sortation area and postal codes for the community. [42] Although, there was a significant increase in screening rates in the communities targeted with the invitation letters compared to the control community, the authors cautioned that literacy could be a potential limitation on the effectiveness of letters [42], perhaps supporting the strategy of adding a phone call contact. [39] A phone call has the advantage of providing direct communication with the participants, and this could help in building confidence and motivation for the screening test. The phone call also serves as a reminder strategy for women who have not initially responded to a screening invitation letter. [40] Personal contact through a phone call might be important, especially for women who feel anxious about the examination or the Pap smear. Also, the possibility to have the Pap smear taken by the person to whom the women talked may further increase motivation for screening. [41] We also suggest for further study to explore how the use of social media such as Twitter and FaceBook may improve delivery of educational messages and women participation in cervical cancer screening.

Self-sampling on screening rates

Our findings that offering the option of self-sampling for HPV DNA testing increases CCS suggests that if women have the required information on HPV testing, educational guides on how it is done, and are offered the option to self-collect vaginal samples for the HPV test, cervical cancer screening programs could significantly improve women participation and screening rates. Self-sampling helps remove potential barriers for women participating in screening programs, such as fear of discomfort during pelvic examination and concerns with privacy. Indeed, the findings in one of the studies suggests that in a population of eligible women who have not attended a primary screening invitation, self-sampling rather than a reminder invitation letter could potentially increase cervical cancer screening rates. [52]

Strengths and limitations of this review

The main strength of this review is the comprehensive search of the literature with involvement of a research librarian (L.O.) who ensured access to full-texts of all study reports we screened for eligibility and inclusion in the review. Additionally, our review was guided by a published systematic review protocol. Our major limitation is that we did not collect secondary outcome data on the cost of cervical cancer screening tests, health insurance coverage and how these variables contributed to the screening rates in women of various socio-economic status, age, and geographic settings. These factors should be considered in future reviews.

Comparability of our review findings with others

Our findings are consistent with the Cochrane review reported by Everret, et al [11] which found that invitation letters are effective interventions that increase the uptake of cervical cancer screening in women. In addition, our review demonstrated that a telephone reminder after an initial invitation letter had a substantial effect on cervical cancer screening rates. Our findings also provided conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of theory-based cervical cancer education at increasing cervical screening rates. In the previous review [11], though there was limited evidence of the effect of educational interventions on uptake of screening, it wasn’t clear which format of education is most effective. [11] Our systematic review and meta-analysis showed that theory-based, culturally and linguistically-sensitive educational interventions administered by lay health advisors consistently demonstrated significant positive improvements in cervical cancer screening rates. Recent reviews by Cam, et al [102, 103] found that group education involving presentations from physicians, lay-health advisors, or cancer survivors, and reducing structural barriers such as providing sign-ups for screening appointments at events, or providing transportation were evidence-based strategies that promote cancer screenings. We did not find any prior systematic reviews on the effectiveness of self-sampling collection in promoting cervical screening rates. Our review however, showed a consistently significant positive impact of this intervention at increasing cervical screening rates, particularly in women who had initially not responded to a Pap smear screening invitation.

Conclusions, implications for policy and future research

Our findings contribute to the literature supporting the implementation of theory-based cervical cancer educational interventions to increase women’s participation in cervical cancer screening programs, particularly by targeting communities with low literacy levels. Indeed, a review of factors influencing cancer screening practices of underserved women [104] found intrinsic motivators for screening related to beliefs and perceptions of vulnerability, such as ignoring cervical cancer screening when no symptoms were present, believing that not knowing if one had cervical cancer was better, and thinking that only women who engage in sexual risk-taking behaviors need to obtain Pap smear testing. [104] Theory-based guided cervical cancer educational interventions such as social cognitive theory and the health belief framework target these constructs and help communities and women to make positive health decisions and take action toward acceptance and completion of screening activities. Provider recommendation interventions, such as invitation letters with follow up phone call reminders, are efforts worth investing in to achieve a significant improvement in screening rates. Implementation of novel sample collection methods such as self-sampling by women and creating reminder mechanisms for providers to initiate testing during opportunistic encounters in the health care setting may yield additional gains in screening rates.

This evidence should be utilized to develop specific resource-setting guidelines for increasing CCS rates in developed and developing countries. For instance, utilizing theory-based cervical cancer education with culturally-sensitive language by lay health workers may yield better screening participation in underdeveloped settings with low literacy levels. Also, utilizing various provider recommendations should be guided by the unique characteristics of the population targeted as discussed earlier.

One area that merits further research is to conduct randomized control trials to better understand the independent effect of provider recommendation intervention variables such as invitation letters, phone calls, appointment letters, reminder letters, and self-sample collection methods on cervical cancer screening rates after adjusting for the effect of education. Most of the studies included in this review did not tease out the direct and indirect effect of education, making it difficult to understand whether or not provider recommendation interventions had their effect mediated through knowledge or education, and what the size and strength of these effects were with or without education as a factor. Conducting further studies with robust statistical modeling such as mediation and moderation regression analyses are also a future area worth considering. Additionally, the use of mobile communication technologies to deliver culturally- and linguistically-sensitive cervical cancer education and understanding the settings where these may work best are potential areas for future research.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Search strategy for identification of studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183924.s001

(PDF)

S2 Appendix. Characteristics of studies, risk of bias assessment, and reference list of studies included and excluded.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183924.s002

(PDF)

S3 Appendix. PRISMA 2009 checklist of items reported.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183924.s003

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledges with thanks the technical guidance of Mark D. Huffman of the Department of Preventive Medicine and general cardiology, coordinating editor of the Cochrane Heart Group US satellite site at Northwestern University, Chicago, USA.

References

  1. 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. pmid:26181261.
  2. 2. 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.
  3. 3. 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.
  4. 4. 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. pmid:28707435.
  5. 5. WHO. WHO guidelines for Screening and Treatment of Precancerous lesions for Cervical Cancer Prevention. WHO guidelines. 2013.
  6. 6. White MC, Wong FL. Preventing premature deaths from breast and cervical cancer among underserved women in the United States: insights gained from a national cancer screening program. Cancer causes & control: CCC. 2015;26(5):805–9. pmid:25783456.
  7. 7. Miller JW, Royalty J, Henley J, White A, Richardson LC. Breast and cervical cancers diagnosed and stage at diagnosis among women served through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Cancer causes & control: CCC. 2015;26(5):741–7. pmid:25724415.
  8. 8. Ekwueme DU, Uzunangelov VJ, Hoerger TJ, Miller JW, Saraiya M, Benard VB, et al. Impact of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program on cervical cancer mortality among uninsured low-income women in the U.S., 1991–2007. American journal of preventive medicine. 2014;47(3):300–8. pmid:25015564.
  9. 9. Moshkovich O, Lebrun-Harris L, Makaroff L, Chidambaran P, Chung M, Sripipatana A, et al. Challenges and Opportunities to Improve Cervical Cancer Screening Rates in US Health Centers through Patient-Centered Medical Home Transformation. Advances in preventive medicine. 2015;2015:182073. pmid:25685561.
  10. 10. CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Cancer screening—United States, 2010. MMWR. 2012;61(3):41–5. pmid:22278157
  11. 11. Everett T, Bryant A, Griffin MF, Martin-Hirsch PP, Forbes CA, Jepson RG. Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2011;(5):Cd002834. Epub 2011/05/13. pmid:21563135.
  12. 12. Virginia AM. Screening for Cervical Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012;156:880–90. pmid:22711081
  13. 13. Sudenga SL, Rositch AF, Otieno WA, Smith JS. Knowledge, attitudes, practices, and perceived risk of cervical cancer among Kenyan women: brief report. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(5):895–9. pmid:23694983.
  14. 14. Idowu A, Olowookere SA, Fagbemi AT, Ogunlaja OA. Determinants of Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake among Women in Ilorin, North Central Nigeria: A Community-Based Study. Journal of cancer epidemiology. 2016;2016:6469240. pmid:26880916.
  15. 15. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. International Agency for Research on Cancer: 2007.
  16. 16. Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan BMN, Shastri Surendra S, Jayant Kasturi, Muwonge Richard, Budukh Atul M, Hingmire Sanjay, Malvi Sylla G, Thorat Ranjit, Kothari Ashok, Chinoy Roshan,. HPV Screening for Cervical Cancer in Rural India. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1385–94. pmid:19339719
  17. 17. Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, Confortini M, Palma PD, Del Mistro A, et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2010;11(3):249–57. pmid:20089449
  18. 18. Rijkaart DC, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, van Kemenade FJ, Bulkmans NWJ, Heideman DAM, et al. Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: final results of the POBASCAM randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2012;13(1):78–88. pmid:22177579
  19. 19. Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfström KM, Tunesi S, Snijders PJF, Arbyn M, et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. The Lancet. 2014;383(9916):524–32.
  20. 20. Naucler Pontus R W, Törnberg Sven, Strand Anders, Wadell Göran, Elfgren Kristina, Rådberg Thomas, Strander Björn, Johansson Bo, Forslund Ola, Hansson Bengt-Göran, Rylander Eva, and Dillner Joakim. Human Papillomavirus and Papanicolaou Tests to Screen for Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;357(16):1589–97. pmid:17942872
  21. 21. Brookfield KF, Cheung MC, Lucci J, Fleming LE, Koniaris LG. Disparities in survival among women with invasive cervical cancer: a problem of access to care. Cancer. 2009;115(1):166–78. pmid:19097209.
  22. 22. Gunderson CC, Nugent EK, McMeekin DS, Moore KN. Distance traveled for treatment of cervical cancer: who travels the farthest, and does it impact outcome? International journal of gynecological cancer: official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society. 2013;23(6):1099–103. pmid:23765207.
  23. 23. Reyes-Ortiz CA, Velez LF, Camacho ME, Ottenbacher KJ, Markides KS. Health insurance and cervical cancer screening among older women in Latin American and Caribbean cities. International journal of epidemiology. 2008;37(4):870–8. pmid:18511488.
  24. 24. Benard VB, Royalty J, Saraiya M, Rockwell T, Helsel W. The effectiveness of targeting never or rarely screened women in a national cervical cancer screening program for underserved women. Cancer causes & control: CCC. 2015;26(5):713–9. pmid:25754108.
  25. 25. Sentell T, Braun KL, Davis J, Davis T. Health literacy and meeting breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines among Asians and whites in California. SpringerPlus. 2015;4:432. pmid:26306294.
  26. 26. Forbes C, Jepson RG, Martin-Hirsch PPL. Interventions Targeted at Women to Encourage the Uptake of Cervical Screening. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2002.
  27. 27. Baron RC, Melillo S, Rimer BK, Coates RJ, Kerner J, Habarta N, et al. Intervention to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers a systematic review of provider reminders. American journal of preventive medicine. 2010;38(1):110–7. Epub 2010/02/02. pmid:20117566.
  28. 28. Prevention CfDCa. Increasing Population-based Breast and Cervical Cancer Screenings: An Action Guide to Facilitate Evidence-based Strategies. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Dept of Health and Human Services. 2014.
  29. 29. Collaboration TC. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. Green JPHaS, editor: A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2008.
  30. 30. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000100. pmid:19621070.
  31. 31. Meader N, King K, Llewellyn A, Norman G, Brown J, Rodgers M, et al. A checklist designed to aid consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments: development and pilot validation. Systematic reviews. 2014;3:82. pmid:25056145.
  32. 32. Nuno T, Martinez ME, Harris R, Garcia F. A Promotora-administered group education intervention to promote breast and cervical cancer screening in a rural community along the U.S.-Mexico border: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer causes & control: CCC. 2011;22(3):367–74. Epub 2010/12/25. pmid:21184267.
  33. 33. Rosser JI, Njoroge B, Huchko MJ. Changing knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding cervical cancer screening: The effects of an educational intervention in rural Kenya. Patient education and counseling. 2015;98(7):884–9. Epub 2015/04/11. pmid:25858634.
  34. 34. Hou SI, Fernandez ME, Baumler E, Parcel GS. Effectiveness of an intervention to increase Pap test screening among Chinese women in Taiwan. Journal of community health. 2002;27(4):277–90. Epub 2002/08/23. pmid:12190056.
  35. 35. Byrd TL, Wilson KM, Smith JL, Coronado G, Vernon SW, Fernandez-Esquer ME, et al. AMIGAS: a multicity, multicomponent cervical cancer prevention trial among Mexican American women. Cancer. 2013;119(7):1365–72. Epub 2013/01/03. pmid:23280399.
  36. 36. Mishra SI, Luce PH, Baquet CR. Increasing pap smear utilization among Samoan women: results from a community based participatory randomized trial. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved. 2009;20(2 Suppl):85–101. Epub 2009/08/28. pmid:19711495.
  37. 37. Fujiwara H, Shimoda A, Ishikawa Y, Taneichi A, Ohashi M, Takahashi Y, et al. Effect of providing risk information on undergoing cervical cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique. 2015;73(1):7. Epub 2015/02/27. pmid:25717376.
  38. 38. Taylor VM, Hislop TG, Jackson JC, Tu SP, Yasui Y, Schwartz SM, et al. A randomized controlled trial of interventions to promote cervical cancer screening among Chinese women in North America. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2002;94(9):670–7. Epub 2002/05/02. pmid:11983755.
  39. 39. Abdul Rashid RM, Mohamed M, Hamid ZA, Dahlui M. Is the phone call the most effective method for recall in cervical cancer screening?—results from a randomised control trial. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP. 2013;14(10):5901–4. Epub 2013/12/03. pmid:24289597.
  40. 40. Heranney D, Fender M, Velten M, Baldauf JJ. A prospective randomized study of two reminding strategies: telephone versus mail in the screening of cervical cancer in women who did not initially respond. Acta cytologica. 2011;55(4):334–40. Epub 2011/07/28. pmid:21791902.
  41. 41. Eaker S, Adami HO, Granath F, Wilander E, Sparen P. A large population-based randomized controlled trial to increase attendance at screening for cervical cancer. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2004;13(3):346–54. Epub 2004/03/10. pmid:15006907.
  42. 42. Decker KM, Turner D, Demers AA, Martens PJ, Lambert P, Chateau D. Evaluating the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening invitation letters. Journal of women's health (2002). 2013;22(8):687–93. Epub 2013/08/07. pmid:23915107.
  43. 43. de Jonge E, Cloes E, Op de Beeck L, Adriaens B, Lousbergh D, Orye GG, et al. A quasi-randomized trial on the effectiveness of an invitation letter to improve participation in a setting of opportunistic screening for cervical cancer. European journal of cancer prevention: the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP). 2008;17(3):238–42. Epub 2008/04/17. pmid:18414195.
  44. 44. Abdullah F, Su TT. Applying the Transtheoretical Model to evaluate the effect of a call-recall program in enhancing Pap smear practice: a cluster randomized trial. Preventive medicine. 2013;57 Suppl:S83–6. Epub 2013/02/19. pmid:23415623.
  45. 45. Buehler SK, Parsons WL. Effectiveness of a call/recall system in improving compliance with cervical cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne. 1997;157(5):521–6. Epub 1997/09/19. pmid:9294390.
  46. 46. Burack RC, Gimotty PA, George J, McBride S, Moncrease A, Simon MS, et al. How reminders given to patients and physicians affected pap smear use in a health maintenance organization: results of a randomized controlled trial. Cancer. 1998;82(12):2391–400. Epub 1998/07/11. pmid:9635532.
  47. 47. Morrell S, Taylor R, Zeckendorf S, Niciak A, Wain G, Ross J. How much does a reminder letter increase cervical screening among under-screened women in NSW? Australian and New Zealand journal of public health. 2005;29(1):78–84. Epub 2005/03/24. pmid:15782877.
  48. 48. Chumworathayi B, Yuenyao P, Luanratanakorn S, Pattamadilok J, Chalapati W, Na-Nhongkai C. Can an appointment-letter intervention increase pap smear screening in Samliem, Khon Kaen, Thailand? Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP. 2007;8(3):353–6. Epub 2007/12/28. pmid:18159966.
  49. 49. Batal H, Biggerstaff S, Dunn T, Mehler PS. Cervical cancer screening in the urgent care setting. Journal of general internal medicine. 2000;15(6):389–94. Epub 2000/07/08. pmid:10886473.
  50. 50. Racey CS, Gesink DC, Burchell AN, Trivers S, Wong T, Rebbapragada A. 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). 2015. Epub 2015/11/26. pmid:26598955.
  51. 51. Duke P, Godwin M, Ratnam S, Dawson L, Fontaine D, Lear A, et al. Effect of vaginal self-sampling on cervical cancer screening rates: a community-based study in Newfoundland. BMC women's health. 2015;15:47. Epub 2015/06/11. pmid:26060041.
  52. 52. Virtanen A, Anttila A, Luostarinen T, Nieminen P. Self-sampling versus reminder letter: effects on cervical cancer screening attendance and coverage in Finland. International journal of cancer Journal international du cancer. 2011;128(11):2681–7. Epub 2010/07/30. pmid:20669228.
  53. 53. Giorgi Rossi P, Fortunato C, Barbarino P, Boveri S, Caroli S, Del Mistro A, et al. Self-sampling to increase participation in cervical cancer screening: an RCT comparing home mailing, distribution in pharmacies, and recall letter. British journal of cancer. 2015;112(4):667–75. Epub 2015/01/31. pmid:25633037.
  54. 54. Haguenoer K, Sengchanh S, Gaudy-Graffin C, Boyard J, Fontenay R, Marret H, et al. Vaginal self-sampling is a cost-effective way to increase participation in a cervical cancer screening programme: a randomised trial. British journal of cancer. 2014;111(11):2187–96. Epub 2014/09/24. pmid:25247320.
  55. 55. Peitzmeier SM, Khullar K, Potter J. Effectiveness of four outreach modalities to patients overdue for cervical cancer screening in the primary care setting: a randomized trial. Cancer causes & control: CCC. 2016;27(9):1081–91. Epub 2016/07/23. pmid:27447961.
  56. 56. Radde K, Gottschalk A, Bussas U, Schulein S, Schriefer D, Seifert U, et al. Invitation to cervical cancer screening does increase participation in Germany: Results from the MARZY study. International journal of cancer. 2016;139(5):1018–30. Epub 2016/04/17. pmid:27083776.
  57. 57. Enerly E, Bonde J, Schee K, Pedersen H, Lonnberg S, Nygard M. Self-Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing among Non-Attenders Increases Attendance to the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme. PloS one. 2016;11(4):e0151978. Epub 2016/04/14. pmid:27073929.
  58. 58. Sultana F, English DR, Simpson JA, Drennan KT, Mullins R, Brotherton JML, et al. Home-based HPV self-sampling improves participation by never-screened and under-screened women: Results from a large randomized trial (iPap) in Australia. International journal of cancer. 2016;139(2):281–90. pmid:26850941
  59. 59. Murphy J, Mark H, Anderson J, Farley J, Allen J. A Randomized Trial of Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling as an Intervention to Promote Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women With HIV. Journal of lower genital tract disease. 2016;20(2):139–44. Epub 2016/03/26. pmid:27015260.
  60. 60. Sossauer G, Zbinden M, Tebeu PM, Fosso GK, Untiet S, Vassilakos P, et al. Impact of an educational intervention on women's knowledge and acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling: a randomized controlled trial in Cameroon. PloS one. 2014;9(10):e109788. Epub 2014/10/22. pmid:25333793.
  61. 61. Byles JE, Sanson-Fisher RW, Redman S, Dickinson JA, Halpin S. Effectiveness of three community based strategies to promote screening for cervical cancer. Journal of medical screening. 1994;1(3):150–8. Epub 1994/07/01. pmid:8790508.
  62. 62. Chalapati W, Chumworathayi B. Can a home-visit invitation increase Pap smear screening in Samliem, Khon Kaen, Thailand? Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP. 2007;8(1):119–23. Epub 2007/05/05. pmid:17477785.
  63. 63. Dignan M, Michielutte R, Blinson K, Wells HB, Case LD, Sharp P, et al. Effectiveness of health education to increase screening for cervical cancer among eastern-band Cherokee Indian women in North Carolina. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1996;88(22):1670–6. Epub 1996/11/20. pmid:8931612.
  64. 64. Abiodun OA, Olu-Abiodun OO, Sotunsa JO, Oluwole FA. 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;14:814. Epub 2014/08/12. pmid:25103189.
  65. 65. Choi SY. Development of an educational program to prevent cervical cancer among immigrants in Korea. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP. 2013;14(9):5345–9. Epub 2013/11/02. pmid:24175823.
  66. 66. Bebis H, Reis N, Yavan T, Bayrak D, Unal A, Bodur S. Effect of health education about cervical cancer and papanicolaou testing on the behavior, knowledge, and beliefs of Turkish women. International journal of gynecological cancer: official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society. 2012;22(8):1407–12. Epub 2012/08/31. pmid:22932261.
  67. 67. Torres-Mejia G, Salmeron-Castro J, Tellez-Rojo MM, Lazcano-Ponce EC, Juarez-Marquez SA, Torres-Torija I, et al. Call and recall for cervical cancer screening in a developing country: a randomised field trial. International journal of cancer Journal international du cancer. 2000;87(6):869–73. Epub 2000/08/24. pmid:10956399.
  68. 68. Thompson B, Vilchis H, Moran C, Copeland W, Holte S, Duggan C. Increasing cervical cancer screening in the United States-Mexico border region. The Journal of rural health: official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association. 2014;30(2):196–205. Epub 2014/04/03. pmid:24689544.
  69. 69. Margolis KL, Lurie N, McGovern PG, Tyrrell M, Slater JS. Increasing breast and cervical cancer screening in low-income women. Journal of general internal medicine. 1998;13(8):515–21. Epub 1998/09/12. pmid:9734787.
  70. 70. Fang CY, Ma GX, Tan Y, Chi N. A multifaceted intervention to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved Korean women. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2007;16(6):1298–302. Epub 2007/06/06. pmid:17548702.
  71. 71. Duggan C, Coronado G, Martinez J, Byrd TL, Carosso E, Lopez C, et al. Cervical cancer screening and adherence to follow-up among Hispanic women study protocol: a randomized controlled trial to increase the uptake of cervical cancer screening in Hispanic women. BMC cancer. 2012;12:170. Epub 2012/05/09. pmid:22559251.
  72. 72. Dignan MB, Michielutte R, Wells HB, Sharp P, Blinson K, Case LD, et al. Health education to increase screening for cervical cancer among Lumbee Indian women in North Carolina. Health education research. 1998;13(4):545–56. Epub 1999/05/27. pmid:10345905.
  73. 73. Dietrich AJ, Tobin JN, Cassells A, Robinson CM, Reh M, Romero KA, et al. Translation of an efficacious cancer-screening intervention to women enrolled in a Medicaid managed care organization. Annals of family medicine. 2007;5(4):320–7. Epub 2007/08/01. pmid:17664498.
  74. 74. Dietrich AJ, Tobin JN, Cassells A, Robinson CM, Greene MA, Sox CH, et al. Telephone care management to improve cancer screening among low-income women: a randomized, controlled trial. Annals of internal medicine. 2006;144(8):563–71. Epub 2006/04/19. pmid:16618953.
  75. 75. de Bie RP, Massuger LF, Lenselink CH, Derksen YH, Prins JB, Bekkers RL. The role of individually targeted information to reduce anxiety before colposcopy: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 2011;118(8):945–50. Epub 2011/06/11. pmid:21658194.
  76. 76. Choma K, McKeever AE. Cervical cancer screening in adolescents: an evidence-based internet education program for practice improvement among advanced practice nurses. Worldviews on evidence-based nursing / Sigma Theta Tau International, Honor Society of Nursing. 2015;12(1):51–60. Epub 2014/12/17. pmid:25495998.
  77. 77. Carrasquillo O, McCann S, Amofah A, Pierre L, Rodriguez B, Alonzo Y, et al. Rationale and design of the research project of the South Florida Center for the Reduction of Cancer Health Disparities (SUCCESS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014;15:299. Epub 2014/07/25. pmid:25056208.
  78. 78. Byles JE, Sanson-Fisher RW. Mass mailing campaigns to promote screening for cervical cancer: do they work, and do they continue to work? Australian and New Zealand journal of public health. 1996;20(3):254–60. Epub 1996/06/01. pmid:8768414.
  79. 79. Bulkmans NW, Bulk S, Ottevanger MS, Rozendaal L, Hellenberg SM, van Kemenade FJ, et al. Implementation of human papillomavirus testing in cervical screening without a concomitant decrease in participation rate. Journal of clinical pathology. 2006;59(11):1218–20. Epub 2006/09/01. pmid:16943223.
  80. 80. Michielutte R, Dignan M, Bahnson J, Wells HB. The Forsyth County Cervical Cancer Prevention Project—II. Compliance with screening follow-up of abnormal cervical smears. Health education research. 1994;9(4):421–32. Epub 1994/11/04. pmid:10150458.
  81. 81. Engelstad LP, Stewart S, Otero-Sabogal R, Leung MS, Davis PI, Pasick RJ. The effectiveness of a community outreach intervention to improve follow-up among underserved women at highest risk for cervical cancer. Preventive medicine. 2005;41(3–4):741–8. Epub 2005/08/30. pmid:16125761.
  82. 82. Fernandez-Esquer ME, Espinoza P, Torres I, Ramirez AG, McAlister AL. A su salud: a quasi-experimental study among Mexican American women. American journal of health behavior. 2003;27(5):536–45. Epub 2003/10/03. pmid:14521249.
  83. 83. Jensen H, Svanholm H, Stovring H, Bro F. A primary healthcare-based intervention to improve a Danish cervical cancer screening programme: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Journal of epidemiology and community health. 2009;63(7):510–5. Epub 2009/02/21. pmid:19228681.
  84. 84. Segnan N, Senore C, Giordano L, Ponti A, Ronco G. Promoting participation in a population screening program for breast and cervical cancer: a randomized trial of different invitation strategies. Tumori. 1998;84(3):348–53. Epub 1998/07/25. pmid:9678615.
  85. 85. Sung JF, Blumenthal DS, Coates RJ, Williams JE, Alema-Mensah E, Liff JM. Effect of a cancer screening intervention conducted by lay health workers among inner-city women. American journal of preventive medicine. 1997;13(1):51–7. Epub 1997/01/01. pmid:9037342.
  86. 86. Dehdari T, Hassani L, Hajizadeh E, Shojaeizadeh D, Nedjat S, Abedini M. Effects of an educational intervention based on the protection motivation theory and implementation intentions on first and second pap test practice in Iran. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP. 2014;15(17):7257–61. Epub 2014/09/18. pmid:25227824.
  87. 87. Love GD, Tanjasiri SP. Using entertainment-education to promote cervical cancer screening in Thai women. Journal of cancer education: the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education. 2012;27(3):585–90. Epub 2012/05/15. pmid:22581487.
  88. 88. Del Mar C, Glasziou P, Adkins P, Hua T, Brown M. Do personalised letters in Vietnamese increase cervical cancer screening among Vietnamese women? Australian and New Zealand journal of public health. 1998;22(7):824–5. Epub 1999/01/16. pmid:9889451.
  89. 89. Burger EA, Nygard M, Gyrd-Hansen D, Moger TA, Kristiansen IS. Does the primary screening test influence women's anxiety and intention to screen for cervical cancer? A randomized survey of Norwegian women. BMC public health. 2014;14:360. Epub 2014/04/17. pmid:24735469.
  90. 90. Acera A, Manresa JM, Rodriguez D, Rodriguez A, Bonet JM, Sanchez N, et al. Analysis of three strategies to increase screening coverage for cervical cancer in the general population of women aged 60 to 70 years: the CRICERVA study. BMC women's health. 2014;14:86. Epub 2014/07/17. pmid:25026889.
  91. 91. Wikstrom I, Lindell M, Sanner K, Wilander E. Self-sampling and HPV testing or ordinary Pap-smear in women not regularly attending screening: a randomised study. British journal of cancer. 2011;105(3):337–9. Epub 2011/07/07. pmid:21730977.
  92. 92. Virtanen A, Nieminen P, Luostarinen T, Anttila A. Self-sample HPV tests as an intervention for nonattendees of cervical cancer screening in Finland: a randomized trial. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2011;20(9):1960–9. Epub 2011/07/15. pmid:21752985.
  93. 93. Campbell E, Peterkin D, Abbott R, Rogers J. Encouraging underscreened women to have cervical cancer screening: the effectiveness of a computer strategy. Preventive medicine. 1997;26(6):801–7. Epub 1997/12/06. pmid:9388791.
  94. 94. Brownstein JN, Cheal N, Ackermann SP, Bassford TL, Campos-Outcalt D. Breast and cervical cancer screening in minority populations: a model for using lay health educators. Journal of cancer education: the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education. 1992;7(4):321–6. Epub 1992/01/01. pmid:1305418.
  95. 95. Dignan MB, Beal PE, Michielutte R, Sharp PC, Daniels LA, Young LD. Development of a direct education workshop for cervical cancer prevention in high risk women: the Forsyth County project. Journal of cancer education: the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education. 1990;5(4):217–23. Epub 1990/01/01. pmid:2132805.
  96. 96. Jenkins CN, McPhee SJ, Bird JA, Pham GQ, Nguyen BH, Nguyen T, et al. Effect of a media-led education campaign on breast and cervical cancer screening among Vietnamese-American women. Preventive medicine. 1999;28(4):395–406. Epub 1999/03/26. pmid:10090869.
  97. 97. Valanis BG, Glasgow RE, Mullooly J, Vogt TM, Whitlock EP, Boles SM, et al. Screening HMO women overdue for both mammograms and pap tests. Preventive medicine. 2002;34(1):40–50. Epub 2001/12/26. pmid:11749095.
  98. 98. Lantz PM, Stencil D, Lippert MT, Beversdorf S, Jaros L, Remington PL. Breast and cervical cancer screening in a low-income managed care sample: the efficacy of physician letters and phone calls. American journal of public health. 1995;85(6):834–6. Epub 1995/06/01. pmid:7646664.
  99. 99. Racey CS, Gesink DC, Burchell AN, Trivers S, Wong T, Rebbapragada A. 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). 2016;25(5):489–97. Epub 2015/11/26. pmid:26598955.
  100. 100. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. 1986.
  101. 101. Bandura A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health education & behavior: the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education. 2004;31(2):143–64.
  102. 102. Escoffery Cam, R KC, Kegler Michelle C, Ayala Mary, Prinsker Erika and Haadrdorfer Regine. A grey literature review of special events for promoting cancer screenings. BMC cancer. 2014;14:454. pmid:24942822
  103. 103. Escoffery Cam, R KC, Kegler Michelle C, Haadrdorfer Regine, Howard David H., Liang Shuting, Pinsker Erika, Roland Katherine B, Allen Jennifer D, Ory Marcia G., Bastani Roshan, Fernandez Maria E., Risendal Betsy C., Byrd Therasa L. and Coronado Gloria D.. A systematic review of special events to promote breast, cervical and corolectal cancer screening in the United States. BMC public health. 2014;14:274. pmid:24661503
  104. 104. Ackerson K, Gretebeck K. Factors influencing cancer screening practices of underserved women. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. 2007;19(11):591–601. Epub 2007/11/01. pmid:17970859.