Electronic Health Interventions and Cervical Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Authors: Liu Xiaoxia , Ning Lianzhen , Fan Wenqi , Jia Chanyi , Ge Lina 
Published: September 2024

Background

Cervical cancer is a significant cause of mortality in women. Although screening has reduced cervical cancer mortality, screening rates remain suboptimal. Electronic health interventions emerge as promising strategies to effectively tackle this issue.

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of electronic health interventions in cervical cancer screening.

Methods

On December 29, 2023, we performed an extensive search for randomized controlled trials evaluating electronic health interventions to promote cervical cancer screening in adults. The search covered multiple databases, including MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. These studies examined the effectiveness of electronic health interventions on cervical cancer screening. Studies published between 2013 and 2022 were included. Two independent reviewers evaluated the titles, abstracts, and full-text publications, also assessing the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on subjects, intervention type, and economic level. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used within a random-effects model to pool the relative risk of participation in cervical cancer screening.

Results

A screening of 713 records identified 14 articles (15 studies) with 23,102 participants, which were included in the final analysis. The intervention strategies used in these studies included short messaging services (4/14), multimode interventions (4/14), phone calls (2/14), web videos (3/14), and internet-based booking (1/14). The results indicated that electronic health interventions were more effective than control interventions for improving cervical cancer screening rates (relative risk [RR] 1.464, 95% CI 1.285-1.667; P<.001; I2=84%), cervical cancer screening (intention-to-treat) (RR 1.382, 95% CI 1.214-1.574; P<.001; I2=82%), and cervical cancer screening (per-protocol; RR 1.565, 95% CI 1.381-1.772; P<.001; I2=74%). Subgroup analysis revealed that phone calls (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.40-2.38), multimode (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.26-2.08), SMS (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.14-1.73), and video- and internet-based booking (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03-1.51) interventions were superior to usual care. In addition, electronic health interventions did not show a statistically significant improvement in cervical cancer screening rates among women with HPV (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95-1.45). Electronic health interventions had a greater impact on improving cervical cancer screening rates among women in low- and middle-income areas (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.27-1.79). There were no indications of small study effects or publication bias.

Conclusions

Electronic health interventions are recommended in cervical cancer screening programs due to their potential to increase participation rates. However, significant heterogeneity remained in this meta-analysis. Researchers should conduct large-scale studies focusing on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

Trial Registration

CRD42024502884; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=502884