Dataset Information

Timeliness of diagnosis of breast and cervical cancers and associated factors in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Breast and cervical cancer are leading causes of morbidity and mortality in women globally, with disproportionately high burdens in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). While the incidence of both cancers increases across LMICs, many cases continue to go undiagnosed or diagnosed late. The aim of this review is to comprehensively map the current evidence on the time to breast or cervical cancer diagnosis and its associated factors in LMICs.

Methods and analysis

This scoping review (ScR) will be informed by Arksey and O'Malley's enhanced ScR methodology framework. It will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We will conduct a comprehensive search of the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, Scopus and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Two reviewers will independently screen all abstracts and full texts using predefined inclusion criteria. All publications describing the time to diagnosis and its associated factors in the contexts of breast or cervical cancer will be considered for inclusion. Evidence will be narratively synthesised and analysed using a predefined conceptual framework.

Ethics and dissemination

As this is a ScR of publicly available data, with no primary data collection, it will not require ethical approval. Findings will be disseminated widely through a peer-reviewed publication and forums such as conferences and community engagement sessions. This review will provide a user-friendly evidence summary for understanding the enormity of diagnostic delays and associated factors for breast and cervical cancers in LMICs, while helping to inform policy actions and implementation of interventions for addressing such delays.

SUBMITTER: Nnaji CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8103943 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesAddressing the barriers to early breast and cervical cancer diagnosis in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) requires a sound understanding and accurate assessment of diagnostic timeliness. This review aimed to map the current evidence on the time to breast and cervical cancer diagnosis and associated factors in LMICs.DesignScoping review.SourcesMEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, Scopus and CINAHL.Eligibility criteriaStudies describing the time to diagnosis and associated factors in the context of breast and cervical cancer in LMICs published from 1 January 2010 to 20 May 2021.Study selection and data synthesisTwo reviewers independently screened all abstracts and full texts using predefined inclusion criteria. The review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Evidence was narratively synthesised using predefined themes.ResultsTwenty-six studies conducted across 24 LMICs were included in the review, most (24/26) of which focused on breast cancer. Studies varied considerably in their conceptualisation and assessment of diagnostic time, events, intervals and delays, with a minority of the studies reporting the use of validated methods and tools. Patient-related intervals and delays were more frequently evaluated and reported than provider-related and health system-related intervals and delays. Across studies, there were variations in the estimated lengths of the appraisal, help-seeking, patient and diagnostic intervals for both cancers and the factors associated with them.ConclusionsDespite the significant burden of breast and cervical cancer in LMICs, there is limited information on the timeliness of diagnosis of these cancers. Major limitations included variations in conceptualisation and assessment of diagnostic events and intervals. These underscore the need for the use of validated and standardised tools, to improve accuracy and translation of findings to better inform interventions for addressing diagnostic delays in LMICs.

Project description:IntroductionBreast and cervical cancers pose a major public health burden globally, with disproportionately high incidence, morbidity and mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The majority of women diagnosed with cancer in LMICs present with late-stage disease, the treatment of which is often costlier and less effective. While interventions to improve the timely diagnosis of these cancers are increasingly being implemented in LMICs, there is uncertainty about their role and effectiveness. The aim of this review is to systematically synthesise available evidence on the nature and effectiveness of interventions for improving timely diagnosis of breast and cervical cancers in LMICs.Methods and analysisA comprehensive search of published and relevant grey literature will be conducted. The following electronic databases will be searched: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Evidence will be synthesised in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Two reviewers will independently screen the search outputs, select studies using predefined inclusion criteria and assess each included study for risk of bias. If sufficient data are available and studies are comparable in terms of interventions and outcomes, a meta-analysis will be conducted. Where studies are not comparable and a meta-analysis is not appropriate, a narrative synthesis of findings will be reported.Ethics and disseminationAs this will be a systematic review of publicly available data, with no primary data collection, it will not require ethical approval. Findings will be disseminated widely through a peer-reviewed publication and forums such as conferences, workshops and community engagement sessions. This review will provide a user-friendly evidence summary for informing further efforts at developing and implementing interventions for addressing delays in breast and cervical cancer diagnosis in LMICs.Prospero registration numberCRD42020177232.

Project description:IntroductionGlobally, transgender and other gender diverse (trans) people face pervasive stigma, which contributes to health inequities across multiple health outcomes. Stigma is a fundamental cause of health inequities because it simultaneously limits access to resources, contributes to systemic vulnerability and generates chronic stress. Anti-trans stigma occurs across multiple socioecological levels, resulting in multiple possible definitions and measurements of trans stigma. Understanding how trans stigma has been measured in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is critical to health promotion efforts for trans communities. Accordingly, this scoping review will identify and examine how anti-trans stigma has been measured in existing LMIC-specific research to inform best practices for measurement of anti-trans stigma that includes consideration of local context.Methods and analysisThis is the protocol for a scoping review of anti-trans stigma in LMICs. We will search (from January 2001 to December 2021) PubMed, WHO Global Medicus and EBSCO. Study selection will conform to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. Original studies in English, Spanish, Arabic or Russian will be included. Reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles and abstract data. Data analysis will involve quantitative and qualitative methods. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationAs a scoping review (no direct interaction with participants), this study is exempt from human subjects oversight. Understanding context-specific ways to measure anti-trans stigma is urgently needed to support trans health globally. The planned scoping review will help to address this gap. Results of the review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and likely in other media such as conferences, seminars and symposia. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/qcs2v.

Project description:The literature on the timeliness of childhood vaccination (i.e. vaccination at the earliest appropriate age) in low-and middle-income countries has important measurement and methodological issues that may limit their usefulness and cross comparison. We aim to conduct a comprehensive scoping review to map the existing literature with a key focus on how the literature on vaccination timeliness has evolved, how it has been defined or measured, and what determinants have been explored in the period spanning the last four decades. This scoping review protocol was developed based on the guidance for scoping reviews from the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will include English and French language peer-reviewed publications and grey literature on the timeliness of routine childhood vaccination in low-and middle-income countries published between January 1978 through to 2021. A three-step search strategy that involves an initial search of two databases to refine the keywords, a full search of all included electronic databases, and screening of references of previous studies for relevant articles missing from our full search will be employed. The search will be conducted in five electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, CINAHL and Web of Science. Google search will also be conducted to identify relevant grey literature on vaccination timeliness. All retrieved titles from the search will be imported into Endnote X9.3.3 (Clarivate Analytics) and deduplicated. Two reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts and full texts of publications for eligibility using Rayyan-the web based application for screening articles for systematic reviews. Using a tailored data extraction template, we will extract relevant information from eligible studies. The study team will analyse the extracted data using descriptive statistical methods and thematic analysis. The results will be presented using tables, while charts and maps will be used to aid the visualisation of the key findings and themes. The proposed review will generate evidence on key methodological gaps in the literature on timeliness of childhood vaccination. Such evidence would shape the direction of future research, and assist immunisation programme managers and country-level stakeholders to address the needs of their national immunisation system.

Project description:IntroductionNearly every field of medicine has some form of clinical practice guidelines. However, only within the past 5-10 years has the medical community acknowledged the need for well-developed guidelines tailored to the local healthcare needs and the resources available. In most low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), healthcare workers depend on guidelines developed in high-income countries (HICs), yet many interventions validated in a HIC are ineffective when implemented in an LMIC. The variation in infrastructure, medical personnel, technology and environmental conditions exhibited in LMICs relative to HICs necessitates a careful appraisal of the evidence base used in clinical guideline recommendations. This review aims to map the use of resource-stratified guidelines across all fields of medicine. The review seeks to answer three questions for the identified guidelines: (1) what was the method of development, (2) have they been implemented and, if so, (3) have they been validated.MethodsThe search strategy will aim to locate studies from inception to November 2021. An initial limited search of PubMed and Scopus was undertaken to identify articles on the topic. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe the articles were used to develop a full search strategy for PubMed and Scopus. This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. Data to be extracted from each study will include population characteristics of both developers and intended implementation population, medical specialty, validation status, method of guideline development, whether the study is consensus or evidence-based in addition to a summary of recommendations for practice.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review. The plan for dissemination is to publish review findings in a peer-reviewed journal.