AMIGAS: building a cervical cancer screening intervention for public health practice

Electronic Health Interventions and Cervical Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is a significant cause of mortality in women. Although screening has reduced cervical cancer mortality, screening rates remain suboptimal. Electronic health interventions emerge as promising strategies to effectively tackle this issue.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of electronic health interventions in cervical cancer screening.

METHODS

On December 29, 2023, we performed an extensive search for randomized controlled trials evaluating electronic health interventions to promote cervical cancer screening in adults. The search covered multiple databases, including MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. These studies examined the effectiveness of electronic health interventions on cervical cancer screening. Studies published between 2013 and 2022 were included. Two independent reviewers evaluated the titles, abstracts, and full-text publications, also assessing the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on subjects, intervention type, and economic level. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used within a random-effects model to pool the relative risk of participation in cervical cancer screening.

RESULTS

A screening of 713 records identified 14 articles (15 studies) with 23,102 participants, which were included in the final analysis. The intervention strategies used in these studies included short messaging services (4/14), multimode interventions (4/14), phone calls (2/14), web videos (3/14), and internet-based booking (1/14). The results indicated that electronic health interventions were more effective than control interventions for improving cervical cancer screening rates (relative risk [RR] 1.464, 95% CI 1.285-1.667; P<.001; I2=84%), cervical cancer screening (intention-to-treat) (RR 1.382, 95% CI 1.214-1.574; P<.001; I2=82%), and cervical cancer screening (per-protocol; RR 1.565, 95% CI 1.381-1.772; P<.001; I2=74%). Subgroup analysis revealed that phone calls (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.40-2.38), multimode (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.26-2.08), SMS (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.14-1.73), and video- and internet-based booking (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03-1.51) interventions were superior to usual care. In addition, electronic health interventions did not show a statistically significant improvement in cervical cancer screening rates among women with HPV (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95-1.45). Electronic health interventions had a greater impact on improving cervical cancer screening rates among women in low- and middle-income areas (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.27-1.79). There were no indications of small study effects or publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Electronic health interventions are recommended in cervical cancer screening programs due to their potential to increase participation rates. However, significant heterogeneity remained in this meta-analysis. Researchers should conduct large-scale studies focusing on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42024502884; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=502884.

An Intersectional Approach to Cervical Cancer Screening Disparities by Race/Ethnicity and Immigrant Status

Background: Disparities in cervical cancer (CC) screening exist within racial/ethnic minority and immigrant groups. However, few studies have explored the joint influence of race/ethnicity and immigrant status on screening, and the disparities that have been identified by existing studies remain incompletely explained. This study aims to identify the joint influence of race/ethnicity and immigrant status on CC screening and elucidate the barriers contributing to identified disparities. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of 25,660 U.S. women from the 2005, 2010, and 2015 National Health Interview Surveys was done. The CC screening up-to-date status of cases was analyzed by race/ethnicity and immigrant status using logistic regression models. Conceptualized mediators were added to models to identify their contribution to identified disparities. Results: All immigrants had lower screening odds than U.S.-born non-Hispanic White women with foreign-born non-Hispanic Asians having the lowest odds (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.49) followed by foreign-born non-Hispanic White (aOR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36-0.76), Hispanic/Latinx (aOR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.47-0.73), and non-Hispanic Black women (aOR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.38-0.99). Adjusting for only socioeconomic status or access to care attenuated the aOR: for foreign-born Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic Black women only. Adjusting simultaneously for language and acculturation attenuated the aOR: for all immigrants. Conclusions: Disparities in CC screening were only found in the immigrant populations of various racial/ethnic groups. Targeting insurance and health care access may address disparities in immigrant Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic Black women. Focusing on culturally and linguistically competent care and education may be more crucial for immigrant non-Hispanic Asian and White women.

Promotores' perspectives on the virtual adaptation of a hereditary breast cancer education program

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women in the United States (U.S.) and the leading cause of cancer related death among U.S. Hispanics/Latinas (H/Ls). H/Ls have lower rates of screening and longer time to follow up after an abnormal mammogram. We developed a comprehensive community health educator (promotores)-led education and risk identification program for Spanish-speaking H/Ls in California to increase mammography screening, genetic testing, and the understanding of the impact of family history on cancer risk. Due to COVID-19, we adapted the program to a virtual platform. The experience of transforming the program to a virtual platform provided unique opportunities for collaboration between researchers, community partners, and participants. Promotores are major partners in community based participatory research and in the provision of health care services, but their voices are often excluded from scientific reports. This commentary is an effort to provide a platform for promotores to share their experiences and for the readers to understand their approach in bridging the gap between health care services and communities.

Learning From Cervical Cancer Survivors: An Examination of Barriers and Facilitators to Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women in the United States

BACKGROUND

Screening and timely follow-up have lowered cervical cancer incidence in the US; however, screening coverage, incidence, and death rates have remained fairly stable in recent years. Studies suggest that half of women diagnosed with cervical cancer don't receive appropriate screening prior to diagnosis; cervical cancer survivors can provide crucial insight into barriers and facilitators to screening.

METHODS

Participants were cervical cancer survivors ≥21 years, identified through population-based central cancer registries (CR) in 3 US states or a social network (SN), Cervivor. CR participants completed a mailed survey on screening history, barriers, and facilitators to screening and sociodemographic data. SN participants completed the same survey online.

RESULTS

CR participants (N = 480) were older, with a lower proportion of non-Hispanic white, married, and insured women compared to SN participants (N = 148). Fifty percent of CR and 79% of SN participants were screened 5 years prior to their diagnoses. Of those screened, 28% in both groups reported not following-up on abnormal results. For both groups, the most frequently identified screening barrier was that participants never imagined they would develop cervical cancer (percent agree CR = 76%; SN = 86%), and the facilitator was wanting to take care of their bodies (CR = 95%; SN = 94%).

CONCLUSION

Addressing key barriers to obtaining screening and timely follow-up related to lack of knowledge of cervical cancer risk and screening tests and addressing insurance coverage in the design or modification of interventions may increase cervical cancer screening and lower cervical cancer incidence in the US.

Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane review published in Issue 5, 2011. Worldwide, cervical cancer is the fourth commonest cancer affecting women. High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is causative in 99.7% of cases. Other risk factors include smoking, multiple sexual partners, the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases and immunosuppression. Primary prevention strategies for cervical cancer focus on reducing HPV infection via vaccination and data suggest that this has the potential to prevent nearly 90% of cases in those vaccinated prior to HPV exposure. However, not all countries can afford vaccination programmes and, worryingly, uptake in many countries has been extremely poor. Secondary prevention, through screening programmes, will remain critical to reducing cervical cancer, especially in unvaccinated women or those vaccinated later in adolescence. This includes screening for the detection of pre-cancerous cells, as well as high-risk HPV. In the UK, since the introduction of the Cervical Screening Programme in 1988, the associated mortality rate from cervical cancer has fallen. However, worldwide, there is great variation between countries in both coverage and uptake of screening. In some countries, national screening programmes are available whereas in others, screening is provided on an opportunistic basis. Additionally, there are differences within countries in uptake dependent on ethnic origin, age, education and socioeconomic status. Thus, understanding and incorporating these factors in screening programmes can increase the uptake of screening. This, together with vaccination, can lead to cervical cancer becoming a rare disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at women, to increase the uptake, including informed uptake, of cervical screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 6, 2020. MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS databases up to June 2020. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis using standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

Comprehensive literature searches identified 2597 records; of these, 70 met our inclusion criteria, of which 69 trials (257,899 participants) were entered into a meta-analysis. The studies assessed the effectiveness of invitational and educational interventions, lay health worker involvement, counselling and risk factor assessment. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity between trials limited statistical pooling of data. Overall, there was moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that invitations appear to be an effective method of increasing uptake compared to control (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.96; 141,391 participants; 24 studies). Additional analyses, ranging from low to moderate-certainty evidence, suggested that invitations that were personalised, i.e. personal invitation, GP invitation letter or letter with a fixed appointment, appeared to be more successful. More specifically, there was very low-certainty evidence to support the use of GP invitation letters as compared to other authority sources' invitation letters within two RCTs, one RCT assessing 86 participants (RR 1.69 95% CI 0.75 to 3.82) and another, showing a modest benefit, included over 4000 participants (RR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.05 to 1.21). Low-certainty evidence favoured personalised invitations (telephone call, face-to-face or targeted letters) as compared to standard invitation letters (RR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.11 to 1.21; 27,663 participants; 5 studies). There was moderate-certainty evidence to support a letter with a fixed appointment to attend, as compared to a letter with an open invitation to make an appointment (RR 1.61, 95 % CI 1.48 to 1.75; 5742 participants; 5 studies). Low-certainty evidence supported the use of educational materials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.54; 63,415 participants; 13 studies) and lay health worker involvement (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.65; 4330 participants; 11 studies). Other less widely reported interventions included counselling, risk factor assessment, access to a health promotion nurse, photo comic book, intensive recruitment and message framing. It was difficult to deduce any meaningful conclusions from these interventions due to sparse data and low-certainty evidence. However, having access to a health promotion nurse and attempts at intensive recruitment may have increased uptake. One trial reported an economic outcome and randomised 3124 participants within a national screening programme to either receive the standard screening invitation, which would incur a fee, or an invitation offering screening free of charge. No difference in the uptake at 90 days was found (574/1562 intervention versus 612/1562 control, (RR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.03). The use of HPV self-testing as an alternative to conventional screening may also be effective at increasing uptake and this will be covered in a subsequent review. Secondary outcomes, including cost data, were incompletely documented. The majority of cluster-RCTs did not account for clustering or adequately report the number of clusters in the trial in order to estimate the design effect, so we did not selectively adjust the trials. It is unlikely that reporting of these trials would impact the overall conclusions and robustness of the results. Of the meta-analyses that could be performed, there was considerable statistical heterogeneity, and this should be borne in mind when interpreting these findings. Given this and the low to moderate evidence, further research may change these findings. The risk of bias in the majority of trials was unclear, and a number of trials suffered from methodological problems and inadequate reporting. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of an unclear or high risk of bias with regards to allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data and other biases.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence to support the use of invitation letters to increase the uptake of cervical screening. Low-certainty evidence showed lay health worker involvement amongst ethnic minority populations may increase screening coverage, and there was also support for educational interventions, but it is unclear what format is most effective. The majority of the studies were from developed countries and so the relevance of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is unclear. Overall, the low-certainty evidence that was identified makes it difficult to infer as to which interventions were best, with exception of invitational interventions, where there appeared to be more reliable evidence.

The Community Guide: A Living Resource for Nursing Practice

Evidence-based recommendations for preventive health.

Group Versus Individual Culturally Tailored and Theory-Based Education to Promote Cervical Cancer Screening Among the Underserved Hispanics: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Purpose:

To determine whether group education is as effective as individual education in improving cervical cancer screening uptake along the US–Mexico border.

Design:

Cluster randomized controlled study.

Setting:

El Paso and Hudspeth Counties, Texas.

Participants:

Three hundred women aged 21 to 65 years, uninsured, due for a Pap test, no prior history of cervical cancer or hysterectomy.

Intervention:

Theory-based, culturally appropriate program comprised of outreach, educational session, navigation services, and no-cost cervical cancer testing.

Measures:

Baseline, immediate postintervention, and 4-month follow-up surveys measured knowledge and theoretical constructs from the Health Belief Model, Theory of Reasoned Action, and the Social Cognitive Theory.

Analysis:

Relative risk regression analyses to assess the effects of educational delivery mode on the uptake of screening. Mixed effect models to analyze changes in psychosocial variables.

Results:

One hundred and fifty women assigned to each educational group; 99% Hispanic. Of all, 85.7% completed the follow-up survey. Differences in screening rate at follow-up were analyzed by education type. Overall screening rate at follow-up was 73.2%, no significant difference by education type (individual: 77.6%, group: 68.9% P = .124). Significant increases among group education at follow-up for knowledge, perceived susceptibility, perceived seriousness, and subjective norms and significant decrease for perceived benefits.

Conclusion:

This study provides evidence to support the effectiveness of group education to promote cervical cancer screening among vulnerable Hispanic women and offers an additional method to address cervical cancer disparities.

Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women by Birthplace and Percent of Lifetime Living in the United States

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to provide national estimates of Pap test receipt, by birthplace, and percent of lifetime in the United States (US).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pooled nationally representative data (2005, 2008, 2013, 2015) from the National Health Interview Survey were used to examine differences in Pap test receipt among adult US women by birthplace and percent of lifetime in the US. Descriptive estimates were age-adjusted. Regression models were adjusted for selected sociodemographic and healthcare access and utilization factors and presented as predicted margins.

RESULTS

Foreign-born women 18 years and older were more than twice as likely to have never received a Pap test compared with US-born women (18.6% vs 6.8%). Regression models showed that foreign-born women from Mexico (9.8%), South America (12.6%), Caribbean (14.6%), Southeast Asia (13.7%), Central Asia (20.4%), South Asia (22.9%), Middle East (25.0%), Africa (27.8%), Europe (16.4%), and Former Soviet Union (28.2%) were more likely to be unscreened compared with US-born women (7.6%). Foreign-born women who spent less than 25% of their life in the US had higher prevalence of never having a Pap test (20%) compared with foreign-born who spent more than 25% of their life in the US (12.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Using national survey, we found that where a woman is born and the percent of her lifetime spent residing in the US do impact whether she gets screened at least once in her lifetime.

IMPACT

These findings may inform cervical cancer screening efforts targeting foreign-born women.

A Culturally Sensitive Approach to Cervical Cancer Prevention in the Latina Population Using the Promotora Model

Latina women of low socioeconomic status are particularly vulnerable to morbidity and mortality from cervical cancer. Lower rates of screening are associated with increased mortality rates in this population. Community health workers known as promotoras de salud can be an effective part of the health care team to help improve health care access in this population. Promotoras using a cervical cancer education curriculum known as AMIGAS can help promote access to services, provide education, and possibly save lives in an underserved population. Nurses and advanced practice nurses who care for underserved Latina women can collaborate with promotoras to increase women's knowledge of cervical cancer screening and of community-based resources available to increase their access to Pap testing and human papillomavirus vaccination.

General practitioners can increase participation in cervical cancer screening - a model program in Hungary

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is a preventable disease. Unfortunately, its mortality is high in Hungary: 9.2 deaths /100000 women/year in 2015. The Hungarian organized, nationwide cervical screening program was launched in 2003, but it could improve the coverage rate of cervical cancer screening only by a few percentage points. The vast majority of women still uses opportunistic screening and the organized screening program had little impact on participation by women who never or rarely consult their gynecologists. We assessed whether involving general practitioners in the cervical cancer screening process would increase participation.

METHODS

The study consisted of two parts: 1. A questionnaire-based health survey was conducted using a representative sample of women aged 25 to 65 years from 11 Hungarian counties, in which we studied where women obtained information about cervical cancer screening. 2. Additionally, a model program and its evaluation were implemented in the practices of general practitioners in one of the 11 counties (Zala county). In this program, general practitioners were informed of their patients' participation in the cervical cancer screening program, and they motivated those who refused the invitation.

RESULTS

Questionnaire-based health survey: A total of 74% (95% confidence interval (CI): 70-77%) of the target population had a screening examination within the previous 3 years. The majority (58, 95% CI: 54-62%) of the target population did not ask for information about cervical cancer screening at all. Only 21% (95% CI: 17-26%) consulted their general practitioners about cancer screening. Evaluation of the model program: the general practitioners effectively motivated 24 out of 88 women (27, 95% CI: 18-38%) who initially refused to participate in the screening program.

CONCLUSION

The majority of Hungarian women are not informed about cervical cancer screening beyond the invitation letter. General practitioners could play a more important role in mobilizing the population to utilize preventive services. The involvement of general practitioners in the organization of the cervical cancer screening program could increase the participation of those women who generally refuse the services.

Breast and cervical cancer screening among Hispanic subgroups in the USA: estimates from the National Health Interview Survey 2008, 2010, and 2013

PURPOSE

This study examined patterns in mammography and Pap test use across and within subpopulations of Hispanic women.

METHODS

Based on data from the National Health Interview Survey (2008, 2010, and 2013), we estimated the proportion of Hispanic women reporting testing for breast and cervical cancer for specific subgroups. We examined test use by demographic characteristics using Chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Overall, the proportion of women aged 50-74 years who reported a mammogram within the past 2 years did not differ significantly across Hispanic subgroups. Among publically and uninsured women, however, proportions of mammography utilization varied significantly across Hispanic subgroups. The proportion of women aged 21-65 years who received a Pap test within the past 3 years differed significantly across Hispanic subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among subgroups of Hispanic women, patterns in mammography and Pap test use vary by insurance status, length of US residency, and type of screening. Certain subgroups of Hispanic women may benefit from culturally tailored efforts to promote breast and cervical cancer screening.

Changes in Knowledge and Beliefs About Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cancer Screening Intervals in Low-Income Women After an Educational Intervention

INTRODUCTION

Women have been reluctant to adopt longer than annual intervals for cervical cancer screening, despite guidelines recommending screening every 3 to 5 years. Our study assessed patient knowledge and beliefs about human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer screening after exposure to an educational intervention, and whether there was a change in time regarding knowledge and beliefs among all study participants in an underserved population.

METHOD

The study was conducted in 15 clinics associated with 6 Federally Qualified Health Centers in Illinois, USA. Cervical cancer screening patients (n = 644) completed a baseline and postintervention follow-up survey. The intervention included an HPV test and an educational pamphlet. Significance testing of changes in knowledge and beliefs was conducted with multilevel, mixed-effects models adjusting for repeated measures of patients and clustering within clinics.

RESULTS

No significant differences in study outcomes were found between the intervention and control groups. Among all women, knowledge of HPV significantly improved over time. At follow-up, fewer women reported that having a co-test is good, wise, will give you peace of mind, will tell you whether you need to worry if Pap is abnormal, is something your doctor thinks you should have, and will give you the best care available. More women said it would be bad, useless, or worrying to wait 3 years for a Pap test at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

HPV knowledge improved over time, but the educational intervention utilized in this study was not successful in improving attitudes and beliefs about co-testing and longer screening intervals, and beliefs about HPV co-testing and 3-year screening intervals were less favorable. Having health care providers discuss the consequences of overscreening and the natural history of HPV and cervical cancer with their patients may help increase adherence to longer screening intervals. Further examination of the essential components for educational intervention in this population is warranted.

A profile of Mexican-born women who adhere to national cervical cancer screening recommendations

The purpose of this study was to examine Mexican-born women's utilization and adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines. Ninety-seven women in the southeastern United States participated. Data were collected in Spanish. The majority of women met adherence guidelines for the pap exam. Marital status, educational attainment, marianismo, blood pressure knowledge, fatalism, cultural cancer beliefs, trust in provider, and perceived provider communication abilities were not associated with utilization or adherence to screening guidelines. This study had higher than expected adherence to screening guidelines. Nearly all women received screenings through safety net services indicating the need to advocate for continued public health funding.