Uptake and barriers to cervical cancer screening among human immunodeficiency virus-positive women in Sub Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the leading cause of disability and mortality among women in Africa. Despite a significant correlation between HIV/AIDS and cervical cancer, there is unacceptably low coverage of the uptake of cervical cancer screening among human immunodeficiency virus-positive women in Sub-Saharan Africa. Individual primary studies are limited in explaining the patterns of uptake of cervical cancer screening. This review therefore considers the uptake of cervical cancer screening and its barriers among human immunodeficiency virus-positive women in Sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: , 2019, from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, POP LINE, Google Scholar, African Journals Online and JURN databases. The quality of the included articles was assessed by using the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale, and the coverage of uptake of cervical cancer screening was pooled after checking for heterogeneity and publication bias. The random effect model was used, and subgroup analysis estimates were performed by country. RESULTS: = 100%). The main barriers to uptake of cervical screening include poor knowledge about cervical cancer and screening, low risk perception of cervical cancer, fear of test result and fear of screening as painful, lack of access to screening services, high cost of screening service, and poor partner attitude and acceptance of the service. The perception of an additional burden of having a cervical cancer diagnosis was found to be a unique barrier among this population of women. CONCLUSION: The unacceptably low coverage of uptake of cervical cancer screening would indicate that the need to scale up the opportunities to these groups of women as well. This review revealed that in addition to structural and health care system barriers, sociocultural and personal barriers are powerful barriers in HIV-positive women. For these cohorts of population, a particular obstacle was discovered to be perception of an additional burden of having cervical cancer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".