Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub
  • Systematic review
  • Open access
  • Published:

A systematic review of randomized control trials of HPV self-collection studies among women in sub-Saharan Africa using the RE-AIM framework

Implementation Science Communications volume 2, Article number: 138 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Self-collection of samples for HPV testing may increase women’s access to cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income settings. However, implementation remains poor in many regions. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine implementation data from randomized controlled trials evaluating human papillomavirus (HPV) self-collection testing among women in sub-Saharan Africa using the RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy/Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework.

Methods

We searched four electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Global Health) for pragmatic randomized controlled trials that promote HPV self-collection among women in sub-Saharan Africa. Study selection and data extraction were conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) checklist. Two researchers independently extracted information from each article using a RE-AIM data extraction tool. The reporting of RE-AIM dimensions was summarized and synthesized across included interventions.

Results

We identified 2008 citations, and eight studies were included. These reported on five unique interventions. The five interventions were conducted in five countries: Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda. Intervention reach (80%) was the most commonly reported RE-AIM dimension, followed by adoption (56%), efficacy/effectiveness (52%), implementation (47%), and maintenance (0%). All the interventions described increased uptake of HPV testing among study participants (effectiveness). However, the majority of the studies focused on reporting internal validity indicators such as inclusion criteria (100%) and exclusion criteria (100%), and few reported on external validity indicators such as participation rate (40%), intervention cost (40%), staff selection (20%), and cost of maintenance (0%).

Conclusions

Our review highlights the under-reporting of external validity indicators such as participation rate, intervention, and maintenance costs in studies of self-collection for HPV testing among women in SSA. Future research should focus on including factors that highlight internal validity factors and external validity factors to develop a greater understanding of ways to increase not only reach but also implementation and long-term maintenance of these interventions. Such data may advance the translation of HPV interventions into practice and reduce health disparities in SSA. Findings highlight the need for innovative tools such as participatory learning approaches or open challenges to expand knowledge and assessment of external validity indicators to ultimately increase the uptake of HPV testing among women in SSA.

Peer Review reports

Background

Human papillomavirus (HPV) causes cervical cancer and can be prevented by screening [1]. However, the implementation of cervical cancer screening programs has been difficult in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where one third of deaths due to cervical cancer occur [2]. Individual (i.e., lack of knowledge and awareness about cervical cancer and preventive service, low-risk perception) [3,4,5,6,7,8], social (i.e., the stigma associated with acquiring disease via sexual intercourse, partner disapproval, cultural and religious beliefs) [7, 9], and structural factors (i.e., high service cost, distance to the health facility, poor and limited training of health providers to conduct test) [1, 10, 11] limits effective pap smear screening among women in the region. However, HPV testing provides a new method for cervical cancer screening.

HPV testing and treatment have been shown to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality in low-resource settings [12]. HPV testing has excellent test characteristics, a longer screening interval of 5 years, and for women aged 30 years and older as recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) [13,14,15]. There are two approaches to HPV testing. The physician-provided approach entails the collection of the vaginal samples by the healthcare provider which are then sent to the laboratory for testing. HPV testing also allows for self-collection of vaginal samples [16], a method where women collect samples themselves and send them to the clinic or laboratory for testing. HPV self-collection may decrease stigma, lack of privacy, and inconvenience and improve access in remote areas [17,18,19]. As a result, HPV self-collection could reduce social and health inequities in accessing cervical cancer screening services in low-resource areas with distant health facilities and limited transportation [20]. In addition, studies have shown that self-collected HPV samples are accurate [17, 21, 22], cost-effective [10], feasible [20, 23], acceptable [20, 23], and convenient for women in SSA [24]. However, HPV self-collection is not used in most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), underlining the need for implementation of scientific research.

While emerging evidence supports the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of HPV self-collection among women in SSA [25, 26], less is known about how these findings can be translated into routine practice in real-world settings. HPV self-collection may be particularly useful in reaching women living in rural settings where there may be limited infrastructure for traditional cervical cancer screening [27]. Evaluating the external and internal validity of HPV self-collection interventions is important for characterizing the generalizability and real-world impacts of HPV self-collection among women in SSA [28]. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework provides a guide for evaluating the real-world impact of public health interventions through a balanced assessment of external and internal validity dimensions that are important in the translation of research to practice [29, 30]. The framework provides a comprehensive guide for disseminating and implementating effective interventions into practice [31, 32]. Specifically, the RE-AIM framework assesses the following: (1) how an intervention reaches the target population and the extent to which the intervention participants are representative of the non-participants; (2) how an intervention achieved the projected objectives, with optimal quality of life; (3) how an intervention was broadly adopted and the extent to which delivery setting and the delivery staff were representative of non-deliverers; (4) how responsible organizations and staff implemented an intervention at a reasonable cost; and (5) an intervention’s ability to be sustained, with long-lasting individual effects [31,32,33,34]. RE-AIM has been used in other systematic reviews evaluating the public health impact of HIV [35] and HIV/NCD integration [36] interventions in SSA and has demonstrated utility in bridging the research to practice gap for health interventions [37].

However, a comprehensive review of the internal and external validity of self-collection for HPV testing interventions among women in SSA is currently lacking. This gap in the literature limits the ability to guide the dissemination and implementation of self-collection for HPV testing interventions into practice. Thus, the purpose of this review is to (1) evaluate the extent to which randomized controlled trials aimed at evaluating self-collection for HPB testing in SSA have reported on dimensions on internal and external validity dimensions using the RE-AIM framework and (2) offer guidance on the design and reporting of future self-collection for HPV testing interventions to improve women’s health in the region.

Methods

We conducted this systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist [38]. The PRISMA checklist is provided in Additional file 1. This systematic review is registered with the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020214351) at the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK.

Search strategy

We searched four electronic bibliographic databases (PubMed, Global Health, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and EMBASE) for articles published through August 9, 2020, and updated on November 20, 2020. We searched for articles including all three key concepts: (1) HPV self-collection, (2) pragmatic randomized controlled trials focused on intervention implementation, and (3) studies conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa guided by the work by Yeh and colleagues [39]. Keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) were applied to capture all key concepts, and search terms were modified for each database. See Additional file 2 for the detailed search strategy used for PubMed which was modified and used in other databases. Search terms were limited to English language publications. Also, published systematic reviews [25, 39] focused on self-collection for HPV testing, as well as reference lists from the included articles, were searched to augment the database literature search.

Study selection

All citations from the initial search were imported into a reference manager, where duplicates were deleted, and titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers (UN, CO-U). The full text of relevant articles was further screened by two independent reviewers (UN, CO-U) using the review inclusion/exclusion criteria. All disagreements regarding article relevance and eligibility were discussed until consensus was reached.

Eligibility criteria

Studies were selected according to the following inclusion criteria: (a) Participants: Women; (b) Intervention: HPV self-collection; Comparators: Comparison of alternative interventions that do not include self-collection for HPV testing (e.g., cervical screening by cytology, Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (VIA) testing services, clinician-collected primary HPV testing); (c) Outcomes: Uptake of self-collection for HPV testing, acceptability of HPV, frequency of cervical cancer screening, linkage to treatment following positive self-test diagnosis; (d) Study designs: Pragmatic Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) - pragmatic RCTs seek to maximize external validity by providing information on the relative merits or real-world clinical alternatives in routine care [40]; and (e) Location: studies conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa. Studies were excluded from the study if the main focus was cervical cancer screening and not HPV self-collection. We also excluded scoping reviews, systematic reviews, commentaries, and opinion pieces.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two authors (UN, CO-U) independently piloted a structured extraction from three studies, one other author (TS) critically reviewed, suggested improvements, and approved the final version of the data extraction form used for the review. Data extraction was performed independently by two authors (UN and CO-U), and any inconsistencies were discussed to reach a consensus. The following information was extracted for each study: first author, year of publication, country of study, HPV detection method, sample collection device, population description, participants’ age range, study design, and sample size. Data from the articles included in this review were analyzed using narrative synthesis [41].

For RE-AIM evaluation, we used a 23-item data collection tool adapted from RE-AIM.org and has been used in several previous systematic reviews that reported the RE-AIM dimensions [42]. See Additional file 3 for the definition of the RE-AIM dimensions. Binary coding was used to report whether individual indicators were reported (1) or not reported (0) within each of the five RE-AIM dimensions. Frequencies, proportions, and means were calculated for each of the indicators. The average proportion of indicators reported within each RE-AIM dimension was calculated by summing the number of indicators reported for a given dimension divided by the total number of possible indicators within the dimension. Also, the proportions of each of the 23-item indicators were derived by summing across all studies and dividing by the total number of interventions (n=5).

Risk of bias assessment

We assessed the risk of bias of the included interventions using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool [43, 44]. The tool consists of the evaluation of six domains: selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias, and other biases [43, 44]. Two authors (UN and CO-U) independently rated the risk of bias for the six domains [43, 44] as low, high, or unclear risk. Differences in the risk of bias ratings were resolved through consensus by discussion. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment tool was only used to evaluate the internal validity of the interventions included in the review; no study was excluded from the review based on the risk-of-bias score.

Results

Search strategy

The original search yielded 2008 potentially eligible articles after duplicates of articles were removed. Of those, 1943 articles were excluded during the title and abstract screening, yielding 65 articles for full-text review. An additional 57 articles were excluded after review of the full text for the following reasons: not focused on self-collection for HPV testing, being non-randomized studies, not in sub-Saharan Africa, and for being review papers. A total of 8 eligible papers, covering 5 unique interventions were finally included in this systematic review. Details on the search strategy are provided in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of the search strategy

Full size image

Characteristics of included studies

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the intervention studies. The majority of the intervention studies were published within the last 6 years, with the earliest published in 2014 and the latest in 2019. All five interventions included in the systematic review were randomized controlled trials. Overall, study sample sizes ranged from 301 in the intervention study by Sossauer et al. [45] to 4944 in the intervention study by Huchko et al. [46] (Median: 500; IQR 350.5–3121.5). The five interventions were conducted in five distinct countries: Cameroon [45], Ethiopia [47], Kenya [46], Nigeria [48], and Uganda [49]. Two of the interventions recruited women ages 25–65 years [45, 50], another two, recruited women ages 30–65 years [48, 49] and one intervention had a lower limit for recruitment, targeting women ages 30–49 years [47]. Only three of the intervention indicated the type of HPV self-collection kit used: Evalyn Brush (Rovers) in the Gizaw et al., study in Ethiopia [47], Dacron swab used in the study by Moses et al. [49] in Uganda, and careHPV in the study by Huchko et al. [46] in Kenya.

Table 1 Summary of intervention characteristics
Full size table

Quality of included studies

More than half of the domains of risk of bias were low or unclear across the studies. Selection bias due to randomization was low across the studies as the consistently used random sequences for randomization (20%), except for one of the studies which conducted the randomization after the study enrollment process [48]. Lack of evidence regarding participants and personnel blinding contributed to potential performance and detection bias. Potential performance bias was high (80%), and 20% of the studies had a low detection bias. Potential attrition bias attributed to incomplete data was low (10%). Also, potential reporting bias and bias from other sources such as confounders were found to be low (0%). Details on the quality assessment of the studies are provided in Additional file 4.

RE-AIM indicators

Overall, individual intervention reported 11 to 15 (median=12) out of a total of 23 RE-AIM indicators. None of the interventions reviewed addressed all 23 indicators across the 5 RE-AIM dimensions. Overall, the average reporting proportions were highest for reach (80%), followed by adoption (56%), efficacy/effectiveness (52%), implementation (47%), and the least reporting rates were for maintenance (0%). Table 2  summarizes the overall percentage of studies reporting on each of the RE-AIM framework dimensions. See Table 2 for additional details on the RE-AIM indicator reporting and Table 3 provides details on the proportion of RE-AIM indicators for the included interventions.

Table 2 The reporting on RE-AIM indicators across the studies
Full size table
Table 3 The proportion of interventions reporting on RE-AIM indicators
Full size table

Reach

The average proportion reporting across indicators within the reach dimension was 80%. Within the reach dimension, the method to identify the target population 5 (100%), inclusion criteria 5 (100%), sample size 5 (100%), and participants’ characteristics 5 (100%) were reported in all the interventions included in this review. Participants for the intervention studies were identified using a variety of strategies. Two studies identified their target population using demographic and surveillance data. Specifically, the study in Ethiopia identified their target population using the Butajira Health and Demographic Surveillance [47] and the study in Kenya utilized a combination of prospective demographic data, census data, health facility information, and mapping [46]. Community announcements through word-of-mouth [45, 48] and advertisements using posters [45] were also utilized to identify the target population for the intervention study. One study engaged outreach workers to recruit potential participants from their homes and places of work [49]. From a geographical perspective, four of the interventions were conducted in urban areas [45, 47,48,49] and only one study site was in a rural setting [46].

The inclusion criteria reported in all 5(100%) interventions were mainly focused on the individual being a female, residing in the study region, being within the age requirement for the study, as well as the willingness and ability to provide consent. Exclusion criteria were also reported across the 5 (100%) interventions. Individuals were excluded from the studies if they were pregnant, menstruating, had a previous hysterectomy or cervical surgery, planned to relocate within 6 months, and refused to give consent before the study. The interventions by Modibbo et al. [48] and Huchko et al. [50] also excluded participants who were HIV positive or participating in an HIV testing trial, respectively.

The sample size, defined as the number of participants who participated in the intervention studies, ranged from 301 to 1299. Characteristics of participants commonly reported included age, education level, marital status, religion, and employment status. Two of the interventions recruited women ages 25–65 years [45, 50], another two, recruited women ages 30–65 years [48, 49] and one intervention had a lower limit for recruitment, targeting women ages 30–49 years [47].

The participation rate, determined by the number of participants recruited who participated in the intervention, was reported in two (40%) of the studies. The characteristics of non-participants were also less reported, such that only 1 (20%) of the intervention reported on this reach indicator.

Effectiveness

On average, the reporting of efficacy/effectiveness indicators was 52% across the five interventions. Within this dimension, the measure or result for at least one follow-up 5 (100%) was the most frequently reported indicator, followed by reporting intent-to-treat 3 (60%) and percent attrition 3 (60%). In terms of measures, the uptake of cervical cancer screening was reported as the primary outcome across the five interventions. All the studies reported higher uptake and adherence for self-collection HPV testing at the end of the study period. In the Sossauer et al. [45] study where the intervention group also received a culturally tailored education on HPV, cervical cancer, and self-collection for HPV testing and the control group received standard information provided at the health centers’, participants in the intervention group had a significantly higher knowledge about HPV and cervical cancer than those in the control group (p<0.05. However, there was no significant difference in the acceptability of HPV self-collection and participants’ confidence in completing HPV self-collection between the intervention and control group.

The baseline activity of study participants was reported in 2 (40%) of the studies. The baseline characteristics reported included participants’ indication of previous screening for cervical cancer, sexual behavior including the number of lifetime sexual partners, gynecological history such as the history of the abnormal cervix, and basic socio-demographic characteristics such as age, educational level, and marital status [45, 48]. Intent-to-treat analysis was utilized in 2 (40%) of the interventions to assess intervention uptake at follow-up [47,48,49]. Three (60%) interventions reported on percent attrition which ranged from 0 [45] to 25% [48]. Attrition resulted from women not completing cervical cancer screening or dropping of the self-collected specimen during the intervention duration. None 0 (0%) of the interventions reported on having measuring the quality of life among study participants.

Adoption

The average reporting proportion of adoption indicators across studies was 56%. Adoption was assessed at the setting and individual level, including the number, proportion, and description of settings and personnel who participated in delivering the intervention.

With regard to adoption indicators at the setting level. All the interventions were restricted to a specific region, and all 5 (100%) interventions described the location where the intervention was implemented. None of the studies provided information on setting-level inclusion and exclusion criteria. General descriptions of the location, such as the name and population, were provided for each location. The interventions were delivered in community centers and health facilities.

In respect to adoption indicators related to intervention staff, the 5 (100%) interventions provided details on the delivery staff who implemented the intervention. Specifically, trained professional staff such as health providers and local outreach staff assisted with the delivery of various interventions. This consisted of participants’ recruitment, intervention allocation, and health facility-based cervical cancer screening. Among these 5 interventions, only 1 intervention provided detailed information on how the staff for the intervention was identified. The adoption rate at the staff or delivery level and setting level was not reported in any of the studies. None of the articles addressed all criteria for adoption.

Implementation

The average reporting of implementation indicators across the intervention was 47%. Implementation was assessed by the extent to which studies reported on intervention duration, frequency, fidelity, and cost of implementation. Four (80%) of the interventions reported on the intervention format, which included intervention duration and frequency [45,46,47]. Among these interventions, three of them specifically included an educational component to educate participants on HPV, cervical cancer, self-collection for HPV testing, as well as a demonstration on how to use the self-collection for HPV testing kits. The intervention by Sossauer and colleagues [45] in Cameroon included a video to provide a visual demonstration of how self-collection for HPV testing works with an opportunity for discussion with participants after the informational. Another unique delivery component among the intervention was seen in the intervention implemented by Hucko et al. [46] in Kenya, where participants who had mobile phones could receive their results from the self-collection for HPV testing through text messages.

Intervention fidelity, or the extent to which the protocol was delivered as intended, was reported by one (20%) intervention. Only Gizaw et al. [47] specifically reported that 40% of participants adhered to all study protocols. The study protocol included participation in the community sensitization program, completing the study questionnaire, completing HPV testing [VIA testing for the comparison arm and HPV self-collection for the intervention arm], and collecting HPV test results [47].

Intervention cost was reported in 2 (40%) of the interventions [48, 49]. In the ASPIRE intervention in Uganda [10, 49], self-collection for HPV testing was found to be the most effective and cost-effective screening strategy compared to VIA. Specifically, self-collection for HPV testing was reported to reduce the lifetime absolute risk of cervical cancer from 4.2 to 3.5%, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of US$130 per dollar per year of life saved (YLS), US$240 per YLS, and US$470 per YLS when performed one, three and five times per lifetime, respectively [10, 49].

Maintenance

None of the interventions reported on any of the three maintenance indicators (“assessment of outcomes ≥6 months post-intervention,” “the current status of the program,” and “cost of maintenance”).

Discussion

The primary aim of our review was to systematically assess the implementation of HPV self-collection interventions in SSA. Our analysis highlights the lack of implementation research on HPV self-collection in the region. Of the five self-collection for HPV testing RCTs identified in our review, on average, 11 (47%) of the 23 RE-AIM indicators were reported. To date, the research literature has been directed towards the evaluation of the effectiveness of self-collection for HPV testing. However, major knowledge gaps exist in our understanding of the process of implementation and maintenance of self-collection for HPV testing interventions among women in SSA. Consistent and detailed reporting of the intervention delivery is crucial to enhance the impact of these interventions, generalizability of findings, and potential for scale-up.

We found that many HPV self-collection studies reported internal validity measures [45, 47,48,49,50]. Consistent with other reviews using the RE-AIM framework [35, 51], the majority of the studies in our review reported on the methods used to identify the target populations, sample size, and characteristics of participants. However, the participation rate and characteristics of non-participants, components that reflect external validity, were rarely reported in studies. This limits the generalizability of the data beyond the type of participants in the study. These indicators are vital for understanding the contextual factors that may influence women’s participation in cervical cancer screening [52]. Additionally, limited reporting on characteristics of non-participants limits the ability to identify populations that are not engaged in or being reached by these interventions. In an effort to address broad access to interventions and include subgroups of the target population that are most in need of such interventions, researchers need to improve on the reporting of the characteristics of non-participants in an intervention study [35]. One way to do so is to utilize a participatory approach involving end-users of these interventions in designing and implementating interventions adapted to their contexts and needs [53, 54]. Given the momentum towards decentralizing STI services to non-clinical settings [55], participatory strategies such as crowdsourcing which invites end-users to brainstorm ideas and solutions to public health issues and then promotes these solutions to end-users [56, 57] may generate knowledge on factors that enhance participation and/or non-participation in self-collection for HPV testing interventions.

Additionally, and similar to the findings from other reviews, effectiveness based upon changes in the primary outcome (i.e., HPV testing uptake) were reported across all studies [58, 59]. Findings from our review highlight the impact of self-collection for HPV testing interventions on cervical cancer screening, with all five studies reporting a significant improvement in some measure of uptake of cervical cancer screening. Measures of effectiveness were the most commonly reported component of the efficacy/effectiveness dimensions, while the quality of life (psychosocial measures) and baseline activity were the least reported. Particularly, the quality of life measures provides a metric to compare across interventions with different behavioral targets and provides a better sense of the impact that the intervention has on the participants’ perceptions of health [28, 60]. Given that HPV-self-collection is relatively a novel area of research in SSA, the focus may have been on determining the impact on screening uptake with scarce reporting of implementation indicators [61]. Moreover, the positive effects reported in these studies may have been overestimated as not all the included studies considered the extent of and reasons for attrition. Yet, why some women participate or choose not to participate in these interventions has important implications for reducing the burden of cervical cancer globally [62, 63]. By omitting such details, an opportunity is lost to further understand barriers or challenges that influence the continued participation of women in cervical screening programs in low-resource settings [64, 65].

Regarding adoption, most of the intervention studies described the intervention location and staff who delivered the intervention. However, only one intervention described the methods used to identify intervention delivery agents [50] and no study provided the adoption rate of the intervention at both individual and setting levels. Yet, the adoption rate matters. Limited information on characteristics of the individual delivery agents and settings within which these interventions take place has implications for the translation of self-collection for HPV testing into real-world settings within the region [35]. It limits the understanding of the characteristics of the settings that work well or may not work well to optimize the implementation of self-collection for HPV testing [35]. Additionally, it limits the identification of factors that may influence translation into practice both within clinical and non-clinical settings and among individual patients.

Although we found limited reporting on the implementation dimension of the RE-AIM framework. Studies included in our review commonly reported the intervention duration and frequency, a consistent finding of other intervention studies [35, 51, 66], which enhances the replication of intervention delivery within real-world practice [51]. However, fidelity, or the extent to which the protocol was delivered as intended and the cost of implementation, was the least reported components of the implementation dimension. Failing to address fidelity with self-collection for HPV testing interventions may have an adverse impact on the effectiveness of these interventions and ultimately perpetuate the burden of cervical cancer [67]. Additionally, policymakers’ appraisal of the cost of self-collection for HPV testing can inform decisions about funding and resource allocation, which makes information on intervention cost-effectiveness critical for making decisions on the scale-up of self-collection for HPV testing interventions in SSA [68, 69].

Finally, and consistent with prior studies [3, 42, 51, 70], none of the intervention studies included in our review reported the maintenance of intervention effects whether at individual or setting levels. Similar to adoption, maintenance whether at the individual or setting level has implications for reducing health disparities related to the cervical cancer burden among women in SSA [3]. Measuring maintenance allows researchers and policymakers to determine whether an effective intervention should be disseminated or scaled up widely [54]. Data on maintenance also allows for an understanding of the contextual determinants or processes necessary for sustaining interventions [71]. The WHO recommends regular HPV-based testing as one of the screening methods for cervical cancer at 3- or 5-year intervals depending on other criteria [72]. As such, sustaining HPV-self collection interventions will be key to significantly reducing the burden of cervical cancer in the region.

There are a few implications and recommendations based on the findings of this review. Future intervention research studies should consider reporting on intervention implementation to enhance the application and translation to real-world contexts. This review highlighted missing opportunities in reporting on intervention adoption and sustainability and key information for uptake of study findings in practice and policy. The use of implementation science frameworks as a guide for intervention development and implementation can enhance the translation of research findings into practice. This is paramount for the effective adoption and scale-up of HPV testing within routine cervical cancer screening, specifically the self-collection approach, shown to have an overall significant higher uptake based on findings from intervention studies included in this review.

Limitations and strengths

There are limitations to this review worth mentioning. First, the conclusions of our review are based on the extent to which the included studies reported on the RE-AIM dimensions. Therefore, some studies may have collected this information, but not reported it in the main research manuscript. Additionally, the focus of our review was reporting of RE-AIM dimensions which may be different from the main purposes of the RCTs included in the review to assess the effectiveness of HPV-self collection on uptake of cervical cancer screening, which focused more on the internal validity of the studies. Second, we focused on reporting the indicators across RE-AIM dimensions, which are different from efficacy-based study quality evaluation that assess the adequacy of study design, sample size, participants’ randomization, and use of validated metrics and statistical methods [51]. Therefore, studies that would typically score high on these efficacy-based study quality evaluations may have scored low when evaluated with the RE-AIM evaluation framework and vice versa [51]. However, it is important to note that our review focused on assessing self-collection for HPV testing interventions using an implementation science lens. Finally, we limited our search strategy to published studies and those available in English, excluding other studies. However, there is empirical evidence that removing non-English studies does not bias systematic review findings [73]. Additionally, we conducted an exhaustive search strategy using well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the PRISMA guidelines and data extraction tool for the RE-AIM framework [35].

Conclusion

This systematic review makes a unique contribution to the literature on whether it is time to RE-AIM the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of self-collection for HPV testing interventions among women in SSA. Our findings underscore the need for researchers to tailor their research designs to maximize the reporting of external validity factors. Innovative tools such as participatory learning approaches or open challenges [74,75,76,77] to expand knowledge of external validity indicators are also warranted to effectively enhance the reach, adoption implementation, and long-term maintenance of self-collection for HPV testing among women in SSA. The poor reporting on these components within all dimensions of the RE-AIM framework may contribute to the limited widespread dissemination of effective self-collection for HPV testing interventions in the region. As a result, efforts are needed to design self-collection for HPV testing strategies that are participatory, with end-users themselves guiding ways to expand the reach, adoption, and implementation of these interventions [53, 78, 79]. Such studies produce sustained and equitable outcomes that are adapted to the local contexts and needs of participants and community settings where the burden of cervical cancer remains high.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

CO-J:

Chisom Obi-Jeff

CO-U:

Chisom Obiezu-Umeh

DO:

David Oladele

HPV:

Human papillomavirus

ICERS:

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios

II:

Ifeoma Idigbe

JI:

Juliet Iwelunmor

JT:

Joseph Tucker

LMICs:

Low- and middle-income countries

Mesh:

Medical Subject Headings

NCD:

Noncommunicable diseases

OE:

Oliver Ezechi

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

RCTs:

Randomized control trials

RE-AIM:

Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance

SSA:

Sub-Saharan Africa

TG:

Titilola Gbaja-biamila

TS:

Thembekile Shato

UN:

Ucheoma Nwaozuru

VIA:

Visual inspection with acetic acid

YLS:

Year of life saved

References

  1. Moodley J, Kawonga M, Bradley J, Hoffman M. Challenges in implementing a cervical screening program in South Africa. Cancer Detect Prev. 2006;30(4):361–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Johnson LG, Armstrong A, Joyce CM, Teitelman AM, Buttenheim AM. Implementation strategies to improve cervical cancer prevention in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Wigle J, Coast E, Watson-Jones D. Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine implementation in low and middle-income countries (LMICs): health system experiences and prospects. Vaccine. 2013;31(37):3811–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Devarapalli P, Labani S, Nagarjuna N, Panchal P, Asthana S. Barriers affecting uptake of cervical cancer screening in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Indian J Cancer. 2018;55(4):318–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gupta R, Gupta S, Mehrotra R, Sodhani P. Cervical cancer screening in resource-constrained countries: current status and future directions. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017;18(6):1461.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Modibbo FI, Dareng E, Bamisaye P, Jedy-Agba E, Adewole A, Oyeneyin L, et al. Qualitative study of barriers to cervical cancer screening among Nigerian women. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1).

  8. Fort VK, Makin MS, Siegler AJ, Ault K, Rochat R. Barriers to cervical cancer screening in Mulanje, Malawi: a qualitative study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:125.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Abotchie PN, Shokar NK. Cervical cancer screening among college students in ghana: knowledge and health beliefs. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(3):412–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Mezei AK, Pedersen HN, Sy S, Regan C, Mitchell-Foster SM, Byamugisha J, et al. Community-based HPV self-collection versus visual inspection with acetic acid in Uganda: a cost-effectiveness analysis of the ASPIRE trial. BMJ Open. 2018;8(6):e020484.

  11. De Abreu C, Horsfall H, Learmonth D. Adherence barriers and facilitators for cervical screening amongst currently disadvantaged women in the greater Cape Town region of South Africa. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2013;5(1):1-10.

  12. Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Shastri SS, Jayant K, Muwonge R, Budukh AM, et al. HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1385–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mustafa RA, Santesso N, Khatib R, Mustafa AA, Wiercioch W, Kehar R, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the accuracy of HPV tests, visual inspection with acetic acid, cytology, and colposcopy. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2016;132(3):259–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Arrossi S, Paolino M, Thouyaret L, Laudi R, Campanera A. Evaluation of scaling-up of HPV self-collection offered by community health workers at home visits to increase screening among socially vulnerable under-screened women in Jujuy Province, Argentina. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jeronimo J, Castle PE, Temin S, Denny L, Gupta V, Kim JJ, et al. Secondary prevention of cervical cancer: ASCO resource-stratified clinical practice guideline. J Glob Oncol. 2017;3(5):635–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Arrossi S, Paolino M, Laudi R, Gago J, Campanera A, Marín O, et al. Programmatic human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer prevention in the Jujuy Demonstration Project in Argentina: a population-based, before-and-after retrospective cohort study. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(6):e772–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lazcano-Ponce E, Lorincz AT, Cruz-Valdez A, Salmerón J, Uribe P, Velasco-Mondragón E, et al. Self-collection of vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer prevention (MARCH): a community-based randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9806):1868–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gök M, Heideman DA, van Kemenade FJ, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, Spruyt JW, et al. HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: cohort study. Bmj. 2010;340:c1040.

  19. Snijders PJ, Verhoef VM, Arbyn M, Ogilvie G, Minozzi S, Banzi R, et al. High-risk HPV testing on self-sampled versus clinician-collected specimens: a review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(10):2223–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fokom Domgue J, Futuh B, Ngalla C, Kakute P, Manjuh F, Manga S, et al. Feasibility of a community-based cervical cancer screening with “test and treat” strategy using self-sample for an HPV test: Experience from rural Cameroon, Africa. Int J Cancer. 2020;147(1):128–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Arbyn M, Smith SB, Temin S, Sultana F, Castle P. Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses. Bmj. 2018;363:k4823.

  22. Arbyn M, Verdoodt F, Snijders PJ, Verhoef VM, Suonio E, Dillner L, et al. Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(2):172–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Obiri-Yeboah D, Adu-Sarkodie Y, Djigma F, Hayfron-Benjamin A, Abdul L, Simpore J, et al. Self-collected vaginal sampling for the detection of genital human papillomavirus (HPV) using care HPV among Ghanaian women. BMC Womens Health. 2017;17(1):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Viviano M, Tran PL, Kenfack B, Catarino R, Akaaboune M, Temogne L, et al. Self-versus physician-collected samples for the follow-up of human papillomavirus-positive women in sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Womens Health. 2018;10:187.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Nodjikouambaye ZA, Adawaye C, Mboumba Bouassa RS, Sadjoli D, Bélec L. A systematic review of self-sampling for HPV testing in Africa. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2020;149(2):123–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nodjikouambaye ZA, Sadjoli D, Bouassa RSM, Péré H, Veyer D, Adawaye C, Matta M, Robin L, Tonen-Wolyec S, Tcheguena MM. P824 Accuracy of cervical cancer screening using a self-collected vial for HPV DNA testing among adult women in sub-saharan africa. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 2019. p. A346-7.

  27. Mahomed K, Evans D, Sauls C, Richter K, Smith J, Firnhaber C. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-collected specimens: perceptions among HIV positive women attending rural and urban clinics in South Africa. Pan Afr Med J. 2014;17:189.

  28. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Glasgow RE, McKay HG, Piette JD, Reynolds KD. The RE-AIM framework for evaluating interventions: what can it tell us about approaches to chronic illness management? Patient Educ Couns. 2001;44(2):119–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Kerner JF, Glasgow RE. Methodologic challenges in disseminating evidence-based interventions to promote physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(4):24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML, Porter GC, et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Health. 2019;7:64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Estabrooks PA, Vogt TM. Evaluating the impact of health promotion programs: using the RE-AIM framework to form summary measures for decision making involving complex issues. Health Educ Res. 2006;21(5):688–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Glasgow RE, Bull SS, Gillette C, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA. Behavior change intervention research in healthcare settings: a review of recent reports with emphasis on external validity. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(1):62–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Compernolle S, De Cocker K, Lakerveld J, Mackenbach JD, Nijpels G, Oppert J-M, et al. A RE-AIM evaluation of evidence-based multi-level interventions to improve obesity-related behaviours in adults: a systematic review (the SPOTLIGHT project). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Iwelunmor J, Nwaozuru U, Obiezu-Umeh C, Ehiri J, Curley J, Ezechi O, et al. Is it time to RE-AIM? A systematic review of economic empowerment as HIV prevention intervention for adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa using the RE-AIM framework. Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1(1):1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kemp CG, Weiner BJ, Sherr KH, Kupfer LE, Cherutich PK, Wilson D, et al. Implementation science for integration of HIV and non-communicable disease services in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Aids. 2018;32:S93–S105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Akers JD, Estabrooks PA, Davy BM. Translational research: bridging the gap between long-term weight loss maintenance research and practice. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(10):1511–1522. e1513.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, Group TP, Oxman A, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med Public Lib Sci. 2009;6:e1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yeh PT, Kennedy CE, De Vuyst H, Narasimhan M. Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(3):e001351.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Dal-Ré R, Janiaud P, Ioannidis JP. Real-world evidence: how pragmatic are randomized controlled trials labeled as pragmatic? BMC Med. 2018;16(1):49.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Stewart R. Changing the world one systematic review at a time: a new development methodology for making a difference. Dev Southern Afr. 2014;31(4):581–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Blackman KC, Zoellner J, Berrey LM, Alexander R, Fanning J, Hill JL, et al. Assessing the internal and external validity of mobile health physical activity promotion interventions: a systematic literature review using the RE-AIM framework. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(10):e224.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, vol. 4. Wiley; 2019.

  44. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj. 2011;343:d5928.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Sossauer G, Zbinden M, Tebeu P-M, Fosso GK, Untiet S, Vassilakos P, et al. Impact of an educational intervention on women’s knowledge and acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling: a randomized controlled trial in Cameroon. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e109788.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Huchko MJ, Sneden J, Sawaya G, Smith-McCune K, Maloba M, Abdulrahim N, et al. Accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid to detect cervical cancer precursors among HIV-infected women in Kenya. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(2):392–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Gizaw M, Teka B, Ruddies F, Abebe T, Kaufmann AM, Worku A, et al. Uptake of cervical cancer screening in Ethiopia by self-sampling HPV DNA compared to visual inspection with acetic acid: a cluster randomized trial. Cancer Prev Res. 2019;12(9):609–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Modibbo F, Iregbu K, Okuma J, Leeman A, Kasius A, de Koning M, et al. Randomized trial evaluating self-sampling for HPV DNA based tests for cervical cancer screening in Nigeria. Infect Agents Cancer. 2017;12(1):11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Moses E, Pedersen HN, Mitchell SM, Sekikubo M, Mwesigwa D, Singer J, et al. Uptake of community-based, self-collected HPV testing vs. visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening in K ampala, U ganda: preliminary results of a randomised controlled trial. Trop Med Int Health. 2015;20(10):1355–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Huchko MJ, Ibrahim S, Blat C, Cohen CR, Smith JS, Hiatt RA, et al. Cervical cancer screening through human papillomavirus testing in community health campaigns versus health facilities in rural western Kenya. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;141(1):63–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Allen K, Zoellner J, Motley M, Estabrooks PA. Understanding the internal and external validity of health literacy interventions: a systematic literature review using the RE-AIM framework. J Health Commun. 2011;16(sup3):55–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Gaglio B, Shoup JA, Glasgow RE. The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):e38–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Ramanadhan S, Davis MM, Armstrong R, Baquero B, Ko LK, Leng JC, et al. Participatory implementation science to increase the impact of evidence-based cancer prevention and control. Cancer Causes Control. 2018;29(3):363–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Glasgow RE, Chambers D. Developing robust, sustainable, implementation systems using rigorous, rapid and relevant science. Clin Transl Sci. 2012;5(1):48–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Pedersen H, Smith L, Racey CS, Cook D, Krajden M, van Niekerk D, et al. Implementation considerations using HPV self-collection to reach women under-screened for cervical cancer in high-income settings. Curr Oncol. 2018;25(1):e4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Tang W, Ritchwood TD, Wu D, Ong JJ, Wei C, Iwelunmor J, et al. Crowdsourcing to improve HIV and sexual health outcomes: a scoping review. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2019;16(4):270–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Iwelunmor J, Ezechi O, Obiezu-Umeh C, Gbaja-Biamila T, Nwaozuru U, Oladele D, et al. The 4 youth by youth HIV self-testing crowdsourcing contest: a qualitative evaluation. Plos one. 2020;15(5):e0233698.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Racey CS, Withrow DR, Gesink D. Self-collected HPV testing improves participation in cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Public Health. 2013;104(2):e159–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Arrossi S, Thouyaret L, Herrero R, Campanera A, Magdaleno A, Cuberli M, et al. Effect of self-collection of HPV DNA offered by community health workers at home visits on uptake of screening for cervical cancer (the EMA study): a population-based cluster-randomised trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3(2):e85–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Bull SS, Estabrooks P. The future of health behavior change research: what is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice? Ann Behav Med. 2004;27(1):3–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Tsu VD, Njama-Meya D, Lim J, Murray M, de Sanjose S. Opportunities and challenges for introducing HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa. Prev Med. 2018;114:205–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Mboumba Bouassa RS, Prazuck T, Lethu T, Meye JF, Belec L. Cervical cancer in sub-Saharan Africa: an emerging and preventable disease associated with oncogenic human papillomavirus. Med Sante Trop. 2017;27(1):16–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Anorlu RI. Cervical cancer: the sub-Saharan African perspective. Reprod Health Matters. 2008;16(32):41–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Ginsburg O, Bray F, Coleman MP, Vanderpuye V, Eniu A, Kotha SR, et al. The global burden of women’s cancers: a grand challenge in global health. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):847–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Lott BE, Trejo MJ, Baum C, McClelland DJ, Adsul P, Madhivanan P, et al. Interventions to increase uptake of cervical screening in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review using the integrated behavioral model. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. McGoey T, Root Z, Bruner MW, Law B. Evaluation of physical activity interventions in children via the reach, efficacy/effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework: a systematic review of randomized and non-randomized trials. Prev Med. 2016;82:8–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Shelton RC, Chambers DA, Glasgow RE. An extension of RE-AIM to enhance sustainability: addressing dynamic context and promoting health equity over time. Front Public Health. 2020;8:134.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Eisman AB, Kilbourne AM, Dopp AR, Saldana L, Eisenberg D. Economic evaluation in implementation science: making the business case for implementation strategies. Psychiatry Res. 2020;283:112433.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Mezei AK, Armstrong HL, Pedersen HN, Campos NG, Mitchell SM, Sekikubo M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening methods in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Int J Cancer. 2017;141(3):437–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Juma K, Reid M, Roy M, Vorkoper S, Temu TM, Levitt NS, et al. From HIV prevention to non-communicable disease health promotion efforts in sub-Saharan Africa: a narrative review. Aids. 2018;32:S63–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Iwelunmor J, Blackstone S, Veira D, Nwaozuru U, Airhihenbuwa C, Munodawafa D, et al. Toward the sustainability of health interventions implemented in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and conceptual framework. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. World Health Organization. Reproductive Health. Chronic Diseases, Health Promotion. Comprehensive cervical cancer control: a guide to essential practice. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006. p. 1-408. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/144785/9789241548953_eng.pdf?sequen.

  73. Morrison A, Polisena J, Husereau D, Moulton K, Clark M, Fiander M, et al. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(2):138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Leviton LC. Generalizing about public health interventions: a mixed-methods approach to external validity. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38:371–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Hanson RF, Schoenwald S, Saunders BE, Chapman J, Palinkas LA, Moreland AD, et al. Testing the Community-Based Learning Collaborative (CBLC) implementation model: a study protocol. Int J Mental Health Syst. 2016;10(1):52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Nadeem E, Olin SS, Hill LC, Hoagwood KE, Horwitz SM. A literature review of learning collaboratives in mental health care: used but untested. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65(9):1088–99.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Tucker JD, Day S, Tang W, Bayus B. Crowdsourcing in medical research: concepts and applications. PeerJ. 2019;7:e6762.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Habila MA, Mantina N, Kimaru LJ, Musa J, Ingram M, Sagay A. Community engaged approaches to cervical cancer prevention and control in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Arrivillaga M, Bermúdez PC, García-Cifuentes JP, Botero J. Innovative prototypes for cervical cancer prevention in low-income primary care settings: a human-centered design approach. Plos one. 2020;15(8):e0238099.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Oketch SY, Kwena Z, Choi Y, Adewumi K, Moghadassi M, Bukusi EA, et al. Perspectives of women participating in a cervical cancer screening campaign with community-based HPV self-sampling in rural western Kenya: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health. 2019;19(1) N.PAG-N.PAG.

  81. Page CM, Ibrahim S, Park LP, Huchko MJ. Patient factors affecting successful linkage to treatment in a cervical cancer prevention program in Kenya: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0222750.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the members of our implementation science lab for their involvement in this paper.

Funding

Not applicable

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ucheoma Nwaozuru, Chisom Obiezu-Umeh, and Chisom Obi-Jeff contributed equally to this study.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, 3545 Lafayette, Ave, Saint Louis, Missouri, 63104, USA

    Ucheoma Nwaozuru, Chisom Obiezu-Umeh & Juliet Iwelunmor

  2. Direct Consulting and Logistics, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria

    Chisom Obi-Jeff

  3. Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control and Prevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box, 1196, St. Louis, Missouri, 63130, USA

    Thembekile Shato

  4. Clinical Sciences Division, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Medical Compound, 6 Edmund Crescent, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria

    Titilola Gbaja-Biamila, David Oladele, Ifeoma Idigbe & Oliver Ezechi

  5. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA

    Joseph Tucker

  6. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

    Joseph Tucker

Authors
  1. Ucheoma Nwaozuru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chisom Obiezu-Umeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chisom Obi-Jeff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thembekile Shato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Titilola Gbaja-Biamila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Oladele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ifeoma Idigbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Joseph Tucker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Oliver Ezechi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Juliet Iwelunmor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

UN and CO-U conceptualized the study, with input from JI and CO-J. UN and CO-U independently reviewed titles/abstracts and extracted the data. UN, CO-U, CO-J, and TS wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors (UN, CO-U, CO-J, TS, TG, JT, DO, II, OE, and JI) reviewed drafts and provided permission for submission for publication. The authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juliet Iwelunmor.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.

Additional file 2.

Search strategy for PubMed which was modified and used in other databases.

Additional file 3.

Definition of the dimension on the RE-AIM framework [1, 2].

Additional file 4.

Quality of Included Studies based on Cochran Collaboration risk of bias tool [1, 2].

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nwaozuru, U., Obiezu-Umeh, C., Obi-Jeff, C. et al. A systematic review of randomized control trials of HPV self-collection studies among women in sub-Saharan Africa using the RE-AIM framework. Implement Sci Commun 2, 138 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00243-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00243-5

Keywords

Implementation Science Communications

ISSN: 2662-2211