The review, led by Nanik Setiyawati with Sri Sulistyowati and Heru Priyanto, analysed twenty-one original intervention and implementation studies spanning Argentina, Nepal, India, the United States, Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Iran, Malaysia and Hong Kong. Rather than pooling effect sizes, the researchers charted who delivered each intervention, where screening access was created, how cultural barriers were addressed and whether participants were connected to follow-up care. This implementation-focused lens matters because a programme labelled a “home visit” can mean radically different things: one visit may merely encourage clinic attendance, while another offers HPV self-collection on the spot, transports the specimen and arranges follow-up for abnormal results.

From the evidence map, six recurring strategy families emerged: lay or peer workforce models, culturally tailored education, navigation and barrier reduction, HPV self-sampling, mobile health reminders and integrated community outreach. The most successful programmes combined several of these functions. In Argentina’s EMA cluster-randomised trial, community health workers offering HPV self-collection during home visits achieved an HPV testing rate of 86 percent compared with 20 percent in the control arm, a risk ratio of 4.02. In Hong Kong, a community health worker-led programme combining education, monthly phone calls and navigation for South Asian women reached 97.9 percent screening uptake at three months versus 52.6 percent among controls.

The numbers from low- and middle-income settings are equally compelling. In Nepal, female community health volunteers who provided home education, referral and follow-up raised screening uptake by 48 percent relative to control. In rural India, a nurse-led multicomponent intervention lifted Pap testing from 4.1 percent at baseline to 71.5 percent within six months. In Nigeria, women offered HPV self-collection in their community achieved 93 percent screening completion compared with 56 percent for hospital-based collection, and nearly all returned specimens were adequate for testing. In the United States, mailed HPV self-collection kits plus scheduling assistance more than doubled uptake among under-screened low-income women, reaching 72 percent versus 37 percent.

Digital tools added measurable value when they addressed concrete barriers. In Tanzania, a randomised double-blind trial found that behaviour-change text messages tripled attendance compared with a single informational message, and adding a transport eVoucher nearly doubled the effect again, pushing the odds ratio to 4.7. That combination worked because it tackled both the behavioural hesitation and the financial cost of reaching a clinic. Yet the review is careful to note that SMS strategies depend on phone access, privacy, literacy and local service capacity, which is why eligibility for the Tanzanian trial itself required mobile-phone ownership.

Perhaps the review’s most important contribution is its insistence on framing screening promotion as a prevention cascade: engagement, communication, access, screening completion, result delivery, triage and treatment linkage. When the authors traced participants beyond the first test, troubling gaps appeared. In rural Kenya, community health campaigns raised population-level screening uptake to 60 percent versus 37 percent for facility-based delivery, but treatment acquisition among HPV-positive women remained low in both arms, at roughly 39 percent and 31 percent with no statistically significant difference. In Uganda, a community self-sampling programme achieved 82 percent participation, yet only 35 percent of women who tested positive for high-risk HPV and received SMS instructions actually attended follow-up, with transport costs, disbelief, childcare burdens and the absence of symptoms all cited as barriers.

These downstream failures carry a hard lesson for policymakers: a first screening test is an intermediate milestone, not the finish line. The review argues that programmes should begin with the least-screened population and specify a complete pathway from trust to treatment linkage, identifying who delivers the message, how cultural and language barriers are addressed, which screening route is offered, how results are communicated and how positive findings are followed up. Education alone, the evidence shows, is often insufficient. Two included trials, one in Hong Kong and one in Kenya, improved knowledge or beliefs without producing a clear screening uptake advantage, underscoring the distinction between changing minds and changing access.

The review also exposes persistent reporting deficiencies that limit how transferable these models are. Uptake was commonly reported, but fidelity to the intervention design, cost, workforce training, equity reach, participant burden, result notification, triage and long-term sustainability were inconsistently documented. Although many studies intentionally recruited rural, low-income, ethnic-minority or safety-net populations, few reported stratified data on who actually completed screening, received results or reached follow-up care across intersecting barriers. A Ugandan cost-effectiveness analysis built on the ASPIRE trial suggested that HPV screen-and-treat could reduce lifetime cervical cancer risk from 4.2 percent to as low as 2.4 percent with repeated screening, at incremental costs of roughly US$130 to US$470 per year of life saved, but those estimates hinge on test costs, treatment linkage and modelled assumptions.

The practical prescription that emerges is to match the intervention to the documented barrier profile of a community. Where mistrust or language barriers dominate, culturally concordant messengers such as community health workers, promotoras and lay health advisors supply relational trust and local legitimacy. Where access barriers dominate, self-sampling, local campaigns, worksite programmes and navigation can physically move the screening opportunity closer to the people who need it. Where downstream retention is weak, result-delivery systems and treatment navigation become the priority investment. The authors acknowledge limitations, including reliance on open bibliographic records, incomplete exclusion-reason logging and heterogeneous study designs that preclude meta-analysis, but the pattern across twenty-one studies is consistent enough to guide programme design today.

As the world pursues the World Health Organization’s cervical cancer elimination targets, this evidence map reframes what success looks like. Getting a woman to complete a screening test matters enormously, but the true measure of a community-based programme is whether she then receives her result, attends follow-up if the test is abnormal and obtains treatment when needed. Programmes that connect trusted community interfaces with feasible screening routes and reliable aftercare, the review concludes, are the ones positioned to convert screening activity into genuine cancer prevention, and future evaluations should report cascade completion and implementation conditions rather than celebrating uptake numbers alone.

Subject of Research: Community-based health promotion strategies to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening

Article Title: Mapping community-based health promotion strategies for cervical cancer screening uptake: A scoping review of intervention components, delivery models and implementation gaps

Article References: Setiyawati, N., Sulistyowati, S., & Priyanto, H. (2026). Mapping community-based health promotion strategies for cervical cancer screening uptake: A scoping review of intervention components, delivery models and implementation gaps. Public Health in Practice, 12, Article 100857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhip.2026.100857

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1016/j.puhip.2026.100857

Keywords: cervical cancer screening, HPV self-sampling, community health workers, health promotion, prevention cascade, patient navigation, SMS reminders, scoping review, global health equity, cancer elimination, public health in practice, screening uptake