MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224939061 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054501

Effectiveness of interventions for improving timely diagnosis of breast and cervical cancers in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review

2022· review· en· W4224939061 on OpenAlexaff
Chukwudi A Nnaji, Paul Kuodi, Fiona M Walter, Jennifer Moodley

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
FundersMedical Research CouncilUniversity of Cape TownCancer Association of South AfricaNewton FundCancer Research UKNational Department of HealthGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsMedicineLow and middle income countriesPsychological interventionBreast cancerCervical cancerLow incomeEpidemiologyFamily medicineDeveloping countryGynecologyEnvironmental healthIntensive care medicinePathologyNursingCancerInternal medicineEconomic growthSocioeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To systematically synthesise available evidence on the nature and effectiveness of interventions for improving timely diagnosis of breast and cervical cancers in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). DESIGN: A systematic review of published evidence. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of published literature was conducted. In addition, relevant grey literature sources and bibliographical references of included studies were searched for potentially eligible evidence. STUDY SELECTION: Studies published between January 2010 and November 2020 were eligible for inclusion. To be eligible, studies had to report on interventions/strategies targeted at women, the general public or healthcare workers, aimed at improving the timely diagnosis of breast and/or cervical cancers in LMIC settings. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Literature search, screening, study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two independent reviewers. Evidence was synthesised and reported using a global taxonomy framework for early cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: From the total of 10 593 records identified, 21 studies conducted across 20 LMICs were included in this review. Most of the included studies (16/21) focused primarily on interventions addressing breast cancers; two focused on cervical cancer while the rest examined multiple cancer types. Reported interventions targeted healthcare workers (12); women and adolescent girls (7) and both women and healthcare workers (3). Eight studies reported on interventions addressing access delays; seven focused on interventions addressing diagnostic delays; two reported on interventions targeted at addressing both access and diagnostic delays, and four studies assessed interventions addressing access, diagnostic and treatment delays. While most interventions were demonstrated to be feasible and effective, many of the reported outcome measures are of limited clinical relevance to diagnostic timeliness. CONCLUSIONS: Though limited, evidence suggests that interventions aimed at addressing barriers to timely diagnosis of breast and cervical cancer are feasible in resource-limited contexts. Future interventions need to address clinically relevant measures to better assess efficacy of interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020177232.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207