==== Front Medicine (Baltimore) Medicine (Baltimore) MEDI Medicine 0025-7974 1536-5964 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Hagerstown, MD MD-D-20-07863 10.1097/MD.0000000000022130 22130 4700 Research Article Study Protocol Systematic Review Effect of telephone-based health education intervention models on cervical cancer screening compliance A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysisLiu Yinchun MBa Zhang Qiang MBb Chen Yanli MMc∗ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7982-2004Wang Chun MBd∗ a Department of Emergency, Army Medical Center of PLA, Chongqing, China b Department of Oncology, Army Medical Center of PLA, Chongqing, China c Department of Gynecology, The First Hospital Affiliated tо AMU, Chongqing, China d Department of General Practice and Health Examination Center, Army Medical Center of PLA, Chongqing, China. ∗ Correspondence: Chun Wang, No. 10, Daping Changjiang road, Yuzhong district, Chongqing, China. Department of general practice and health examination center, Army Medical Center of PLA, Chongqing 400042, China (e-mail: wangchun860218@163.com). Yanli Chen, No.30, Gaotan Yanzheng Street, Shapingba District, Chongqing, China. Department of gynecology, The First Hospital Affiliated Tо AMU, Chongqing 400038, China (e-mail: 371311797@qq.com). 4 12 2020 04 12 2020 99 49 e221307 8 2020 11 8 2020 Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.2020This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0Abstract Background: Screening is an effective strategy for preventing and controlling the cervical cancer. Unfortunately, women are often less likely to adhere to cervical cancer screening procedures. Related research shows that the telephone-based health education model can improve the compliance of screening. At present, however, this practice is lack of persuasion. Therefore, this study makes a systematic meta-analysis on whether the telephone-based health education model can improve the compliance of screening by women. Methods: Retrievals will be made on PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and some clinical trial registration websites, and information on related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will collected. After 2 researchers independently screen the literatures, they will extract the data and evaluate the bias risk contained in the collected studies, before meta-analysis is carried out with RevMan 5.3 software. Results: The available evidence will be systematically reviewed in terms of compliance with cervical cancer screening. Conclusion: The findings of this study will produce comprehensive evidence to identify whether the telephone-based health education model can improve women's compliance with cervical cancer screening. Keywords telephone-based health education interventioncervical cancer screeningcomplianceprotocolsystematic reviewmeta-analysisTraining program of talent innovation ability of Army Medical Center of PLANO.2019CXHLC014Chun WangOPEN-ACCESSTRUECOUNTRYUNITED STATES ==== Body 1 Introduction Cervical cancer is a common malignant tumor with women. According to a report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2018, the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer ranked fourth in the world. In 2018, there were about 570,000 new cases of cervical cancer, leading to about 311,000 deaths.[1,2] As the only cancer with definite etiology, cervical cancer is preventable and treatable at present. Early detection of it can be improved by raising awareness, conducting early counseling with health professionals and implementing screening programs.[3] Cervical cancer screening was introduced in Australia in the 1960s as the National Cervical Cancer Screening Program, jointly implemented by national, state, and regional governments to provide free screening services for women of the right ages. Aimed at women between the ages of 18 and 69 years who have a sexual history, the program requires a screening interval of once every 2 years. From 1991 to 2002, the program has reduced the morbidity and mortality of cervical cancer by 50%, with both of them having since been stable.[1] Despite extensive cancer screening being arranged, its compliance tends to be low.[4,5] A clinical investigation has found that most women have not much knowledge on the disease, with poor awareness of early screening.[6–8] Some investigations show that up to 23.5% of women have never been screened in their lifetime.[9] Therefore, improving the awareness of the disease is conducive to improving the participation in cervical cancer screening. At present, to improve the awareness and compliance of cervical cancer screening, different strategies have been implemented, including written letters, phone calls or text messages, small videos, pamphlets, mass media, and face-to-face education programs.[10] But these interventions have their own advantages and disadvantages. How to reduce the cost and improve the compliance of cervical cancer screening is still a focus of the current research. Studies have demonstrated that telephone-based health education can improve the compliance of people who do not insist on screening by 20%.[11] However, given various forms of telephone-based interventions, results from different surveys are controversial. Therefore, this study will conduct a meta-analysis to explore the impact of telephone-based intervention model on women's cervical cancer screening compliance, so as to provide reliable evidence for the prevention of the disease. 2 Methods 2.1 Protocol register This study's protocol is drafted under the guidance of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P).[12] Moreover, it has been registered on OSF (Registration number: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/R8F45). 2.2 Ethics As this is a protocol with no patient recruitment and personal information collection, the approval of the ethics committee is not required. 2.3 Eligibility criteria 2.3.1 Types of studies This study will collect all the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about telephone-based health education intervention models on cervical cancer screening compliance, regardless of blinding, publication status, region, and language. 2.3.2 Research objects Women aged between 18 and 65 years and eligible for cervical cancer screening are included in the study (who have initiated sexual activities, have not undergone hysterectomy, and have not received any treatment for cervical cancer). 2.3.3 Intervention measures The experimental group receives health education intervention by telephone, and the forms of health education are unlimited. Women in the control group are invited to participate in cervical cancer screening through a written letter that meets the standard nursing criteria. 2.3.4 Outcome indicators Compliance rate of screening. 2.4 Exclusion criteria (1) Studies published repeatedly; (2) Studies whose literature forms are abstracts or conference papers, with no ways to obtain the original data; (3) Studies whose data are incomplete or have obvious errors that cannot be addressed after communications with the authors; (4) Studies with wrong random methods. 2.5 Retrieval strategy Such terms as “health education,” “telephone,” “cervical cancer,” and “screening” are searched in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and some clinical trial registration websites. The retrieval period is from the establishment of databases to July 2020, and all RCTs on telephone-based health education intervention models related to cervical cancer screening compliance are collected. Taking PubMed as an example, the retrieval strategy is summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Search strategy in PubMed database. Number Search terms #1 telephone intervention[Title/Abstract] #2 telephone-based intervention[Title/Abstract] #3 telephone interview[Title/Abstract] #4 telephone consultation[Title/Abstract] #5 mobile telephone[Title/Abstract] #6 #1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 #7 Uterine Cervical Neoplasms[Mesh] #8 Cancer of Cervix[Title/Abstract] #9 Cancer of the Cervix [Title/Abstract] #10 Cancer of the Uterine Cervix[Title/Abstract] #11 Cervical Cancer[Title/Abstract] #12 Cervical Neoplasms[Title/Abstract] #13 Cervix Cancer[Title/Abstract] #14 Cervix Neoplasms[Title/Abstract] #15 Neoplasms, Cervical[Title/Abstract] #16 Neoplasms, Cervix[Title/Abstract] #17 Uterine Cervical Cancer[Title/Abstract] #18 Cancer, Cervix[Title/Abstract] #19 Cancer, Uterine Cervical[Title/Abstract] #20 Cancers, Cervix[Title/Abstract] #21 Cancers, Uterine Cervical[Title/Abstract] #22 Cervical Cancer, Uterine[Title/Abstract] #23 Cervical Cancers, Uterine[Title/Abstract] #24 Cervical Neoplasm[Title/Abstract] #25 Cervical Neoplasm, Uterine[Title/Abstract] #26 Cervical Neoplasms, Uterine[Title/Abstract] #27 Cervix Neoplasm[Title/Abstract] #28 Neoplasm, Cervical[Title/Abstract] #29 Neoplasm, Cervix[Title/Abstract] #30 Neoplasm, Uterine Cervical[Title/Abstract] #31 Neoplasms, Uterine Cervical[Title/Abstract] #32 Uterine Cervical Cancers[Title/Abstract] #33 Uterine Cervical Neoplasm[Title/Abstract] #34 #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26 OR #27 OR #28 OR #29 OR #30 OR #31OR #32 OR #33 #35 Patient Compliance[Mesh] #36 Patient Adherence[Title/Abstract] #37 Patient Cooperation[Title/Abstract] #38 Patient Noncompliance[Title/Abstract] #39 Patient Non-Adherence[Title/Abstract] #40 Patient Non-Compliance[Title/Abstract] #41 Patient Nonadherence[Title/Abstract] #42 Adherence, Patient[Title/Abstract] #43 Compliance, Patient[Title/Abstract] #44 Cooperation, Patient[Title/Abstract] #45 Non-Adherence, Patient[Title/Abstract] #46 Non-Compliance, Patient[Title/Abstract] #47 Nonadherence, Patient[Title/Abstract] #48 Noncompliance, Patient[Title/Abstract] #49 Patient Non Adherence[Title/Abstract] #50 Patient Non Compliance[Title/Abstract] #51 # 35 OR #36 OR #37 OR #38 OR #39 OR #40 OR #41 OR #42 OR #43 OR #44 OR #45 OR #46 OR #47 OR #48 OR #49 OR #50 #52 Mass Screening[Mesh] #53 Screening[Title/Abstract] #54 Mass Screenings[Title/Abstract] #55 Screening, Mass[Title/Abstract] #56 Screenings[Title/Abstract] #57 Screenings, Mass[Title/Abstract] #58 #52 OR #53 OR #54 OR #55 OR #56 OR #57 OR #58 #59 #6 AND #34 AND #51 AND #58 2.6 Data screening and extraction According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2 researchers will independently screen the literatures and cross-check the extracted data, and the blind method is used in the whole screening process. If any literature with disputes found in the screening is not sure whether to be included, it shall be addressed through the group discussion or decided by a third researcher. The extracted messages include the first author, publication time, sample size, outcome indicators, intervention measures, measurement tools, evaluation time of outcome indicators, main results, intervention personnel, etc. The literature screening process is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Flow diagram of study selection process. 2.7 Literature quality evaluation Two researchers will independently evaluate the literature quality by using a bias risk assessment tool following the quality evaluation standard as specified in the Cochrane handbook. The risks are divided into 3 levels according to the probability of bias risks. Complete satisfaction means that the risk of bias is the smallest, rated as Grade A; partial satisfaction means that the possibility of bias is moderate, rated as Grade B; complete dissatisfaction means the possibility of bias is high, rated as Grade C. 2.8 Statistical analysis 2.8.1 Data analysis and processing The RevMan 5.3 software (CochraneCommunity, London, UK) provided by the Cochrane Collaboration is used for statistical analysis. Relative risk (RR) is used for statistics, and all the above data are represented by effect value at 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity test: Q test is used to qualitatively determine interstudy heterogeneity: If P ≥ .1, there is no interstudy heterogeneity; if P < .1, there is interstudy heterogeneity. At the same time, I2 value is used to quantitatively evaluate the interstudy heterogeneity: If I2 ≤ 50%, the heterogeneity is considered to be good, and the fixed-effect model will be adopted; if I2 > 50%, it shows significant heterogeneity, and the source of heterogeneity would be explored through subgroup analysis or sensitivity analysis. If there was no obvious clinical or methodological heterogeneity, it would be considered as statistical heterogeneity, and the random-effect model would be used for analysis. Descriptive analysis will be used if there was significant clinical heterogeneity between the 2 groups, and subgroup analysis is not required. 2.8.2 Dealing with missing data If data are missing or incomplete, the corresponding authors will be contacted to retrieve the missing data. If failed, such studies will be removed. 2.8.3 Subgroup analysis A subgroup analysis is conducted based on the age, education level, and intervention mode of the screened women. 2.8.4 Sensitivity analysis In order to test the stability of meta-analysis results of outcomes, a one-by-one elimination method will be adopted for sensitivity analysis. 2.8.5 Assessment of reporting bias Egger and Begg tests are used to quantitatively assess the potential publication bias. 2.8.6 Evidence quality evaluation The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) will be used to assess the quality of evidence. 3 Discussion In 2018, there were an estimated 570,000 new cases of cervical cancer on a global scale, most of them occurring with women who either had no access to cervical screening, or had not participated in screening in regions where the program is available.[13] Evidence-based medical surveys show that screening is an effective means for the prevention and treatment of cervical cancer.[14] Early diagnoses and standardized treatments of cervical cancer and its precancerous lesions can effectively reduce the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer.[15,16] However, the clinical surveys have found that many female patients usually do not have undergone regular physical examination. As a result, in the clinical diagnosis, most of the treatments are too late, and the best time for treatment has long been missed, thus increasing the case fatality rate.[17–19] Therefore, it is of great significance to prevent the deterioration of cervical cancer by early screening and strengthening health education for potential patients with cervical cancer. At present, there are many reports about the impact of telephone-based health education intervention models on the compliance with cervical cancer screening by women, but there is a lack of systematic and correct evaluations. Consequently, it is necessary to use evidence-based medicine to objectively evaluate the impact of telephone-based health education intervention models on women's cervical cancer screening compliance, so as to promote screening practice and provide scientific and evidence-based intervention strategies for this disease's prevention. However, this study also has some limitations. For example, different phone-based health education models will have diversified impacts on the results. In addition, at different levels of education, women's understanding of the disease varies as well. In addition, due to the limitation in language abilities, researches in other languages may be ignored, thus possibly leading to some publication biases. Author contributions Data collection: Yinchun Liu and Qiang Zhang Funding support: Qiang Zhang Literature retrieval: Yanli Chen Software operating: Yanli Chen Supervision: Yanli Chen Writing – original draft: Chun Wang and Yanli Chen Writing – review & editing: Chun Wang and Yinchun Liu Abbreviations: CIs = confidence intervals, GRADE = The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, RR = relative risk, RCTs = randomized controlled trials. How to cite this article: Liu Y, Zhang Q, Chen Y, Wang C. Effect of telephone-based health education intervention models on cervical cancer screening compliance: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2020;99:49(e22130). This work is supported by the Training program of talent innovation ability of Army Medical Center of PLA (NO.2019CXHLC014). The private information on individuals will not be published. This systematic review will also not involve impairing the participants’ rights. Ethical approval is not required. The results may be published in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated in relevant conferences. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. OSF Registration Number: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/R8F45 ==== Refs References [1] Bray F Ferlay J Soerjomataram I Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries . CA Cancer J Clin 2018 ;68 :394 –424 .30207593 [2] Ferlay J Colombet M Soerjomataram I Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods . Int J Cancer 2019 ;144 :1941 –53 .30350310 [3] Kessler TA Cervical Cancer: Prevention and Early Detection . Semin Oncol Nurs 2017 ;33 :172 –83 .28343836 [4] Del MAA Aupee M Batal-Steil S Cancer screening in the European Union . Eur J Cancer 1994 ;30 :860 –72 . [5] Sawaya GF Smith-McCune K Kuppermann M Cervical cancer screening: more choices in 2019 . JAMA 2019 ;321 :2018 –9 .31135834 [6] Nunes MF Leite AH Dias SF Inequalities in adherence to cervical cancer screening in Portugal . Eur J Cancer Prev 2020 ;[Epub ahead of print] . [7] Alldredge J Leaf MC Patel P Prevalence and predictors of HIV screening in invasive cervical cancer: a 10 year cohort study . Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020 ;30 :772 –6 .32156714 [8] Godfrey MAL Mathenjwa S Mayat N Rural Zulu women's knowledge of and attitudes towards Pap smears and adherence to cervical screening . Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med 2019 ;11 :e1 –6 . [9] Oliveira M Peleteiro B Lunet N Cytology use for cervical cancer screening in Portugal: results from the 2005/2006 National Health Survey . Eur J Public Health 2014 ;24 :253 –8 .23788013 [10] Firmino-Machado J Mendes R Moreira A Stepwise strategy to improve Cervical Cancer Screening Adherence (SCAN-CC): automated text messages, phone calls and face-to-face interviews: protocol of a population-based randomised controlled trial . BMJ Open 2017 ;7 :e017730 . [11] Eaker S Adami HO Granath F A large population-based randomized controlled trial to increase attendance at screening for cervical cancer . Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004 ;13 :346 –54 .15006907 [12] Shamseer L Moher D Clarke M Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation . BMJ 2015 ;350 :g7647 .25555855 [13] Hawkes D Keung MHT Huang Y Self-collection for cervical screening programs: from research to reality . Cancers 2020 ;12 :1053 . [14] Qiao Y L, Zhao Y Q. Epidemiology and prevention of cervical cancer. Chin J Obstet Gynecol Pediatr (Electronic ed) 2015(02);1–6. [15] Fei HL Cheng YF Cheng XD Evaluation of five screening methods for an early detection of cervical cancer and its precancerous lesions in Zhejiang province . Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2011 ;91 :309 –12 .21419004 [16] Baldur-Felskov B Munk C Nielsen TS Trends in the incidence of cervical cancer and severe precancerous lesions in Denmark, 1997-2012 . Cancer Causes Control 2015 ;26 :1105 –16 .26033777 [17] Bedell SL Goldstein LS Goldstein AR Cervical cancer screening: past, present, and future . Sex Med Rev 2020 ;8 :28 –37 .31791846 [18] Chan CK Aimagambetova G Ukybassova T Human papillomavirus infection and cervical cancer: epidemiology, screening, and vaccination-review of current perspectives . J Oncol 2019 ;2019 :3257939 .31687023 [19] Bhatia D Lega IC Wu W Breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in adults with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis . Diabetologia 2020 ;63 :34 –48 .31650239