MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4377988051 · doi:10.1101/2023.05.17.23290046

A process evaluation of integrated service delivery of self-collected HPV-based cervical cancer screening using RE-AIM in the ASPIRE Mayuge pragmatic randomized trial

2023· preprint· en· W4377988051 on OpenAlexaff
Nadia Mithani, Anna Gottschlich, Beth A. Payne, Jessica Trawin, Arianne Albert, José Jerónimo, Sheona Mitchell‐Foster, Ruth Namugosa, Priscilla Naguti, Angeli Rawat, Princess Nothemba Simelela, Joel Singer, Laurie Smith, Dirk van Niekerk, Jackson Orem, Carolyn Nakisige, Gina Ogilvie

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUganda Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialCervical cancerPopulationFamily medicineReproductive healthIntervention (counseling)Community healthNursingCancerPublic healthEnvironmental healthSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background In many low-resourced settings, self-collected HPV-based cervical cancer screening (SCS) is being rolled out through task shifting to community health workers (CHWs). Process evaluations are needed to ensure SCS programs are effective and translate to community-based contexts. Methods The Advances in Screening and Prevention in Reproductive Cancers (ASPIRE) study in Mayuge, Uganda was a two-arm, pragmatic randomized trial comparing two SCS implementation strategies facilitated by CHWs: Door-to-door and Community health day recruitment. This adjunct study uses the RE-AIM evaluation framework to assess the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance of each implementation strategy in a subpopulation using process data collected throughout the trial. Results Of the trial population (n=2019), 781 women participated in both the baseline and exit surveys (door-to-door: n=406; community health day: n=375) and are included in this analysis. Both implementation strategies demonstrated high Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance. Trial consent rate was high and 100% of consenting participants in both arms participated in SCS (Reach). Follow-up rates among HPV positive participants were also high in both arms (door-to-door: 84% and community health day: 74%) (Efficacy). The intervention employed 61 CHWs, 7 nurses, 3 health facilities and other local staff within the health system to implement the intervention (Adoption). The community health day arm received HPV screening results and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) quicker than the door-to-door arm, but reported higher dissatisfaction with wait times (Implementation). While women had knowledge of cervical cancer symptoms and prevention measures at six-months post-intervention, no one in either arm recalled that cervical cancer could be asymptomatic (Maintenance). Conclusion Both SCS implementation strategies performed well, demonstrating high Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance throughout participating communities. Implementing pragmatic approaches including task-shifting to CHWs can reduce health worker burden and improve screening access in low-resourced, community-based settings.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCervical Cancer and HPV Research→French-language works237,207→