Educational interventions for cervical cancer prevention: a scoping review.
Josiane Montanho Mariño, Lailah Maria Pinto Nunes, Yasmin Cardoso Metwaly Mohamed Ali and 2 others
PMID 38018622WHAT IT FOUND
Educational programmes for cervical cancer screening mostly used group discussions, lectures and leaflets, often led by community health workers.
Nurse-led components were uncommon. This maps what was done, not proof that any method works.
Key findings
01The review analysed 33 studies, involving 151,457 participants, of educational interventions for adult women with no previous cervical cancer diagnosis.
02Most interventions used participatory group discussions, lectures and expository lessons, with leaflets or booklets as support materials.
03Community health workers delivered most group educational activities, while nurses were explicitly involved in only four studies.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review's objective was to identify, map and describe educational intervention characteristics, not to prove effectiveness. Some studies were excluded because they did not describe intervention elements or the theory used. The authors did not check the references of analysed studies to locate additional studies. Nurse delivery was explicit in only four studies, so the review cannot show how much nurses alone contribute.
Declared interests
The authors reported support from CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior).
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that nurse-led education improves cervical cancer screening. The review mapped intervention characteristics and found explicit nurse delivery was uncommon, so it shows a gap in who delivered education, not a tested treatment effect.