Developing the Evidence Base to Inform Best Practice: A Scoping Study of Breast and Cervical Cancer Reviews in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

• Published in: PloS one 2015-09, Vol.10 (9), p.e0134618-e0134618
• Main Authors: Demment, Margaret M, Peters, Karen, Dykens, J Andrew, Dozier, Ann, Nawaz, Haq, McIntosh, Scott, Smith, Jennifer S, Sy, Angela, Irwin, Tracy, Fogg, Thomas T, Khaliq, Mahmooda, Blumenfeld, Rachel, Massoudi, Mehran, De Ver Dye, Timothy
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Best practice; Biomedical Research; Breast cancer; Breast Neoplasms - therapy; Cancer; Cancer screening; Care and treatment; Cervical cancer; Cervix; Criteria; Demographic aspects; Developing Countries; Diagnosis; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Global health; Health aspects; Humans; Income; LDCs; Mammography; Medical diagnosis; Morbidity; Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards; Prevention; Review Literature as Topic; Reviews; Studies; Survival; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - prevention & control; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - therapy; Womens health
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134618

Breast and cervical cancers have emerged as major global health challenges and disproportionately lead to excess morbidity and mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) when compared to high-income countries. The objective of this paper was to highlight key findings, recommendations, and gaps in research and practice identified through a scoping study of recent reviews in breast and cervical cancer in LMICs. We conducted a scoping study based on the six-stage framework of Arskey and O'Malley. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, and CINAHL with the following inclusion criteria: 1) published between 2005-February 2015, 2) focused on breast or cervical cancer 3) focused on LMIC, 4) review article, and 5) published in English. Through our systematic search, 63 out of the 94 identified cervical cancer reviews met our selection criteria and 36 of the 54 in breast cancer. Cervical cancer reviews were more likely to focus upon prevention and screening, while breast cancer reviews were more likely to focus upon treatment and survivorship. Few of the breast cancer reviews referenced research and data from LMICs themselves; cervical cancer reviews were more likely to do so. Most reviews did not include elements of the PRISMA checklist. Overall, a limited evidence base supports breast and cervical cancer control in LMICs. Further breast and cervical cancer prevention and control studies are necessary in LMICs.