Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2023 Sep 8;3(9):e0002332. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002332

Collection of cancer-specific data in population-based surveys in low- and middle-income countries: A review of the demographic and health surveys

Chukwudi A Nnaji 1,2,*, Jennifer Moodley 1,2,3
Editor: Prabhdeep Kaur4
PMCID: PMC10490941  PMID: 37682795

Abstract

Population-based surveys, such as those conducted by the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Programme, can collect and disseminate the data needed to inform cancer control efforts in a standardised and comparable manner. This review examines the DHS questionnaires, with the aim of describing and analysing how cancer-specific questions have been asked from the inception of the surveys to date. A systematic search of the DHS database was conducted to identify cancer-specific questions asked in surveys. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the cancer-specific questions across survey years and countries. In addition, the framing and scope of questions were appraised. A total of 341 DHS surveys (including standard, interim, continuous and special DHS surveys) have been conducted in 90 countries since 1985, 316 of which have been completed. A total of 39 (43.3%) of the countries have conducted at least one DHS survey with one or more cancer-specific questions. Of the 316 surveys with available final reports and questionnaires, 81 (25.6%) included at least one cancer-specific question; 54 (17.1%) included questions specific to cervical cancer, 41 (13.0%) asked questions about breast cancer, and 8 (2.5%) included questions related to prostate cancer. Questions related to other cancers (including colorectal, laryngeal, liver, lung, oral cavity, ovarian and non-site-specific cancers) were included in 40 (12.6%) of the surveys. Cancer screening-related questions were the most commonly asked. The majority of the surveys included questions on alcohol and tobacco use, which are known cancer risk factors. The frequency of cancer-specific questions has increased, though unsteadily, since inception of the DHS. Overall, the framing and scope of the cancer questions varied considerably across countries and survey years. To aid the collection of more useful population-level data to inform cancer-control priorities, it is imperative to improve the scope and content of cancer-specific questions in future DHS surveys.

Introduction

The burden of cancer incidence and mortality is rapidly growing worldwide, accounting for an estimated 10 million deaths and about 20% of all deaths globally in 2020 [1]. The burden is disproportionately high in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where access to cancer care is often sub-optimal [2]. Particularly, the burden of cancer-related mortality is significantly higher in LMICs, accounting for 65% of all cancer deaths globally despite a lower incidence of cancer compared with high-income countries (HICs) [24]. The share of global cancer deaths occurring in LMICs is projected to increase to 75% by 2030 [4]. Due to the prevalence of carcinogenic infections like Helicobacter pylori, hepatitis B virus, and human papillomavirus, LMICs bear a significant burden of infection-associated cancers, including gastric cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma and cervical cancer, in contrast to HICs where these types of cancers are less common.[2] National and subnational cancer data are useful tools for assessing the magnitude of cancer burden and informing cancer control priorities [5, 6]. Yet, there is very limited availability of high quality cancer data in many LMICs, with only one in five countries able to report cancer data of sufficient quality to determine incidence and prevalence estimates [5, 6].

Population-based surveys offer a potentially useful source of data to address data gaps, providing a key source of information about the prevalence, risk factors and patterns of diseases and public health issues [7, 8]. In the context of cancer control, such information may assist in guiding appropriate cancer control interventions, track changes over time, and support the evaluation of cancer programmes. Population-based surveys, such as those conducted by the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Programme, can collect and disseminate the data needed to inform cancer control efforts in a standardised and comparable manner [9, 10]. Since 1984, the DHS programme has collected, analysed, and disseminated nationally-representative data across various themes of population health in over 90 LMICs [11]. The surveys cover topics, such as maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS, malaria, nutrition, women’s empowerment, fertility, and family planning. DHS Surveys usually involve a large number of respondents (between 5,000 and 30,000) and typically are conducted about every 5 years, to allow comparisons over time [11].

The DHS programme supports countries with standard survey methodologies, manuals, and procedures for data collection, including standard model survey questionnaires. While the DHS surveys are designed to be comparable across countries, each country can adapt its survey to suit its national context and health information needs, enabling the collection of contextually relevant and useful data for informing country-level data-informed decision making. For instance, DHS data and findings are commonly used to benchmark country-level progress and evaluate potential impacts of specific health policies and interventions [9]. Readily available and representative data are needed to inform cancer control priorities, evaluate the performance of cancer interventions and strengthen cancer control programmes [10]. Population-based surveys may be particularly important in LMICs where reliable cancer registries and high quality health information systems are often lacking [12].

Although the DHS questionnaires have historically included questions on cancer risk factors, prevalence, awareness and screening, little is known about the nature and extent to which cancer-specific questions have been asked over time and across country contexts. An important question is whether the DHS questionnaires currently allow for the collection of data that are useful for informing and strengthening cancer control programmes in LMICs, or whether there are opportunities for making the questions more relevant and fit-for-purpose.

Therefore, this study examines DHS questionnaires since inception of the surveys in 1984 to 2022, with the aim of reviewing and critically evaluating the types of cancer-specific data collected by the DHS in LMICs from the inception of the surveys to date. Specifically, it aims to identify the cancer-specific questions and to assess the frequency, nature and scope of those questions. For the purposes of this assessment, cancer-specific questions refer to those relating to specific aspects of cancer, such as survey participants’ knowledge and awareness of particular cancers; prevalence of commonly occurring cancers; and awareness, practices and trends relating to cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment. As a secondary objective, this study aimed to quantify and characterise questions specific to alcohol consumption and tobacco use, which are known risk factors of cancer and other non-communicable diseases.

Ultimately, the study seeks to provide an evidence base for guiding the design and implementation of future DHS and similar population-based surveys to more effectively collect context-appropriate data related to cancer awareness, prevention, screening, prevalence, early diagnosis and treatment practices. Such data will be useful for supporting national cancer control programmes and efforts, by providing nationally-representative and context-specific data on priority cancers. Furthermore, revising the DHS to better integrate cancer-related questions can help support and accelerate the World Health Organization’s Global Monitoring Framework on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and other global efforts aimed at tracking progress in the prevention, early detection and control major NCDs including cancers in LMICs [10].

Methods

Study design

This study applied a systematic approach to searching, identifying and analysing DHS data collection tools for cancer-specific questions asked since the inception of the surveys to the date of search.

Structure of DHS surveys

DHS surveys collect primary data using four types of model questionnaires: a household questionnaire used to collect information on characteristics of the household’s dwelling unit and characteristics; individual woman’s questionnaire, individual man’s questionnaire and the biomarker questionnaire is used to collect biomarker data on children, women, and men. Individual men and women questionnaires include information on fertility, mortality, family planning, marriage, reproductive health, child health, nutrition, and specific diseases such as malaria, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, breast cancer and cervical cancer. In addition to these, individual questionnaires often include questions on common cancer risk factors like tobacco use and alcohol consumption. Country-specific questions are typically added to meet local conditions and needs. Periodic updates to the model questionnaires are made through an open consultation and invitation of input from the public, to meet countries’ existing and emerging data needs. For special information on topics that are not contained in the model questionnaires, optional questionnaire modules are available. Survey questionnaires are made publicly available as part of final reports published on the DHS Programme’s website [11].

Search strategy

A systematic search of the DHS database was conducted to identify cancer-specific questions asked during the surveys from inception of the DHS programme in 1984 to August 2022, and updated in December 2022 [13]. Survey questionnaires were searched for questions relating to specific aspects of cancer, such as survey participants’ knowledge and awareness of particular cancers; prevalence of commonly occurring cancers; and awareness, practices and trends relating to cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment. The search was conducted in three steps. The first step involved searching the DHS Programme’s website using the website’s ‘search by survey characteristics’ search function, which specifies keywords such as cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, prostate cancer, and screening to identify survey questionnaires that included questions on these topics. A filter was applied to restrict the search to DHS surveys (standard, interim, continuous and special DHS surveys) while excluding other survey types such as the AIDS Indicator Survey (AIS), Malaria Indicator Surveys (MIS) and Service Provision Assessment (SPA). From the initial search results, ten surveys were randomly selected (two for every decade from the 1980s). The second step of the search involved a full text assessment of the questionnaires of these surveys (usually available as appendices in the full reports of each survey) to identify relevant cancer-related search terms for the next step of the search.

In the third step of the search, assessments of the full texts of all available survey questionnaires were conducted using the search terms identified from the previous step. Such search terms included: cancer, tumour, screening, breast, breast cancer, breast examination, mammography, cervical cancer, cervix, Pap smear, Human papillomavirus, lung cancer and prostate cancer. To identify surveys with questions specific to alcohol consumption and tobacco use, which are known risk factors of cancer, the DHS database’s ‘search by survey characteristics’ search function was applied to identify all surveys in which alcohol and tobacco use questions were asked since inception of the DHS. Search terms were adapted for French, Spanish and Portuguese texts. All available survey questionnaires since the inception of the DHS programme were searched, with no language restrictions. Questionnaires in any language other than English were translated using a web-based translation tool [14].

Data extraction

Cancer-specific questions identified from the third step of the search and other relevant information were extracted using a data extraction tool, and charted under the following domains identified in the second step of the search: cancer risk factors; prevalence; awareness and knowledge; screening and detection; treatment and follow-up; and barriers to cancer services.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to quantitatively summarise the number of cancer-specific questions and questionnaires across survey years and countries. Historical trends of surveys and cancer-specific questions were illustrated using time-series charts, while a heatmap was used to show the global distribution of the frequency of surveys asking cancer-specific questions across countries. Narrative summaries were presented by cancer type and emergent themes. In addition, the framing, scope and depth of identified survey questions were appraised.

Results

The search returned a total of 341 DHS surveys (including standard, interim, continuous and special DHS surveys) conducted in 90 countries since 1985. As of the last search on 19 August 2022, 316 of these surveys have been completed with final reports and reports available, while the rest are ongoing. Of the 316 surveys with available final reports and questionnaires, 81 (25,6%) included at least one cancer-specific question; 54 (17.1%) included cervical cancer-specific questions, 41 (13.0%) asked questions about breast cancer, and 8 (2.5%) included questions related to prostate cancer. Questions related to other cancers (including laryngeal, liver, lung, oral cavity, ovarian and non-site-specific cancers) were included in 40 (12.6%) of the surveys. In terms of geographical spread, a total of 39 (43.3%) of the 90 countries where DHS surveys have been conducted to date have at least one survey with one or more questions focused on cancer. Cervical cancer-specific questions were asked in more countries (27), compared with breast (17 countries) and prostate cancer (8 countries), Questions related to other or non-site specific cancers were asked in 24 countries. Fig 1 illustrates the search results and the distribution of cancer-specific questions by cancer sites and country settings.

Fig 1. Distribution of cancer-specific questions across DHS surveys, by cancer types and country settings.

Fig 1

Fig 2 shows the trends of the number and proportions of DHS surveys with cancer-specific questions over time. Overall, the number and proportions of surveys with cancer-specific questions increased, though unsteadily, across the years from 1985, with the proportions increasing from around 15% in the earliest period (1985–1989) to 60% in 2020–2021. Table 1 shows the distribution of cancer-specific questions by cancer type, country and survey year.

Fig 2. Temporal trend of the number and proportion of DHS surveys with cancer-specific questions (1985–2021).

Fig 2

Table 1. Cancer-specific questions by country and survey years.

Country Region Survey year Surveys with breast cancer questions Surveys with cervical cancer questions Surveys with prostate cancer questions Surveys with questions on other cancers
Angola Africa 2016 None None None None
Benin Africa 1996, 2001, 2006, 2012, 2018 None 2018 None 2018
Botswana Africa 1988 None None None None
Burkina Faso Africa 1993, 1999, 2003, 2010 2010 2010 None None
Burundi Africa 1987, 2010, 2017 None None None 2017
Cameroon Africa 1991, 1998, 2004, 2011, 2018 None 2018 None 2018
Cape Verde Africa 2005 None None None None
Central African Rep Africa 1995 None None None None
Chad Africa 1997, 2004, 2015 None None None None
Comoros Africa 1996, 2012 None None None None
Congo Africa 2005, 2012 None None None None
Congo (Dem Rep) Africa 2007, 2014 None None None None
Cote d’Ivoire Africa 1994, 1999, 2012 2012 2012 None None
Egypt Africa 1988, 1992, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2014 None None None None
Equatorial Guinea Africa 2011 2011 2011 None None
Eritrea Africa 1995, 2002 None None None None
Eswatini Africa 2007 None None None None
Ethiopia Africa 2000, 2005, 2011, 2016, 2019 None None None None
Gabon Africa 2000, 2012 None None None None
Gambia Africa 2013, 2020 None None None None
Ghana Africa 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2014 None None None 2008
Guinea Africa 1992, 1999, 2005, 2012, 2018 None None None None
Kenya Africa 1989, 1993, 1998, 2003, 2009, 2014 2014 2014 2014 None
Lesotho Africa 2004, 2009, 2014 2009, 2014 2009, 2014 None None
Liberia Africa 1986. 2007, 2013, 2020 None  None None None
Madagascar Africa 1992, 1997, 2004, 2009, 2021 None 2021 None None
Malawi Africa 1992, 2000, 2004, 2010, 2016 None None None None
Mali Africa 1987, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2013, 2018 None None None None
Mauritania Africa 2001 None None None None
Morocco Africa 1987, 1992, 1995, 2004 None None None 2004
Mozambique Africa 1997, 2003, 2011, 2021 None None None 2021
Namibia Africa 1992, 2000, 2007, 2013 2013, 2000 2013 2013 None
Niger Africa 1992, 1998, 2006, 2012 None None None 2012
Nigeria Africa 1990, 1999, 2003, 2008, 2013, 2018 None None None None
Rwanda Africa 1992, 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2015, 2020 None 2020 None None
Sao Tome and Principe Africa 2009 None None None None
Senegal Africa 1986, 1993, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 None None None 2014
Sierra Leone Africa 2008, 2013, 2019 None None None  None
South Africa Africa 1998, 2003, 2016 None 2016 None 1998, 2003, 2016
Sudan Africa 1990 None None None None
Tanzania Africa 1992, 1996, 1999, 2005, 2010, 2016 None None None None
Togo Africa 1988, 1998, 2014 None None None None
Tunisia Africa 1988 None None None None
Uganda Africa 1989, 1995, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016 None None None None
Zambia Africa 1992, 1996, 2002, 2007, 2014, 2018 None None None None
Zimbabwe Africa 1988, 1994, 1999, 2006, 2011, 2015 None  2015 None None
Afghanistan Asia 2015 None None None None
Bangladesh Asia 1994, 1997, 2000, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2014, 2018 2014 None None None
Cambodia Asia 2000, 2005, 2010, 2014 None None 2015  None
India Asia 1993, 1999, 2006, 2016, 2021 2016, 2021 2016, 2021 None 2016, 2021
Indonesia Asia 1987, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2003, 2007, 2012, 2017 None None None  None
Jordan Asia 1990, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2018 2002, 2007, 2012, 2018 2007, 2012, 2018 None 2018
Kazakhstan Asia 1995, 1999 None None None None
Kyrgyz Republic Asia 1997, 2012 None None None None
Maldives Asia 2009, 2017 None None None 2017
Myanmar Asia 2016 None None None  None
Nepal Asia 1996, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016 None None None 2006
Pakistan Asia 1991, 2007, 2013, 2018 None None None 2007
Philippines Asia 1993, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013, 2017 2017, 2013, 2008, 2003, 1998 2017, 2013, 2003, 1998 2013, 2003 2017, 2013, 2008, 2003, 1998
Sri Lanka Asia 1987, 2007, 2016 None None None None
Tajikistan Asia 2012, 2017 2012 2012 None None
Thailand Asia 1987 None None None None
Timor-Leste Asia 2010, 2016 None 2016 None 2016
Turkmenistan Asia 2000 None None None None
Uzbekistan Asia 1996 None None None None
Vietnam Asia 1997, 2002 None None None None
Yemen Asia 1992, 1997, 2013 None None None 2013
Albania Europe 2009, 2018 2009, 2018 2009, 2018 None 2009, 2018
Armenia Europe 2000, 2005, 2010, 2016 2000, 2005, 2010 2010, 2005, 2000 2010 2010
Azerbaijan Europe 2006 None None None None
Moldova Europe 2005 None None None None
Turkey Europe 1993, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013, 2018 None None None None
Ukraine Europe 2007 None None None None
Bolivia L/America 1989, 1994, 1998, 2003, 2008 None 2008, 2003 None  None
Brazil L/America 1986, 1991, 1996 None 1986, 1996 None 1991
Colombia L/America 1996, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 2015, 2010, 2005  2015, 2010, 2005, 1990  2015 2015, 2010
Dominican Republic L/America 1986, 1991, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2007a, 2007b, 2013a, 2013b 2013a, 2013b, 2007, 2002, 1996 2013a, 2013b, 2007, 2002, 1996  None 2013, 2007, 2002, 1996, 1986
Ecuador L/America 1987 None None None None
El Salvador L/America 1985 None None None None
Guatemala L/America 1987, 1995, 1999, 2015 None 2015, 1999, 1987 None None
Guyana L/America 2009 None None None None
Haiti L/America 1995, 2000, 2006, 2012, 2017 None 2017 None 2017
Honduras L/America 2006, 2012 2006, 2012 2012, 2006  2012  None
Mexico L/America 1987 None None None None
Nicaragua L/America 1998, 2001 None None None None
Paraguay L/America 1990 None None None None
Peru L/America 1986, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014 None 2014, 2013, 2011, 2010
Trinidad and Tobago L/America 1987 None 1987 None None
Papua New Guinea Oceania 2018 None None None None
Samoa Oceania 2009 None None None None

Fig 3 is a heatmap illustrating the global distribution of DHS surveys with cancer-specific questions by frequency across countries. The spatial trend shows countries in the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region having conducted more surveys with cancer-specific questions than those of other regions. Of the countries with two or more surveys collecting questions on cancer, seven are in the LAC region (Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras and Peru), while three are in Africa (Lesotho, Namibia and South Africa, all of which are in southern Africa); another three are in Asia (India, Jordan and the Philippines) and two are in Europe (Albania and Armenia). While the majority of LAC countries that have conducted at least one DHS survey have asked cancer-specific questions in one or more of those surveys, the opposite is the case in Africa, with the majority of countries in the region having not asked cancer related questions in their DHS surveys despite the high number of DHS surveys conducted on the continent.

Fig 3. Global distribution of DHS surveys with cancer-specific questions by frequency across countries.

Fig 3

Map created in miscrosoft excel using Geographic Heat Map add-in: an open-source tool available via: https://appsource.microsoft.com/en-us/product/office/WA103304320?tab=DetailsAndSupport.

Cervical cancer

Questions on cervical cancer (often referred to as cancer of the neck of the womb in surveys) were asked in 54 surveys across 28 countries. Cervical cancer screening questions featured the most (54 surveys). In this domain, participants were asked in closed-end yes/no questions if they have heard of cervical cancer screening, with specific reference to Pap smear test in most of the such questions. Questions asking if respondents had been screened for cervical cancer in the past 12 months were commonly asked. A minority of surveys included additional questions about the type of cervical screening and the outcome of the screening. Notably, some questionnaires provided information on cancer screening procedures such as Pap smear and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), before proceeding to ask respondents if they had been screened for cervical cancer. Questions relating to cervical cancer awareness and knowledge were assessed in 16 surveys. These included questions on whether respondents have ever heard of cervical cancer; their knowledge of the Human papillomavirus (HPV); and signs and symptoms of cervical cancer. In five surveys, respondents were asked if they had cervical cancer as an indicator of prevalence. Only five surveys included questions on breast cancer treatment, by asking participants if they received treatment following a cervical cancer diagnosis.

Questions about barriers to access to cervical cancer services were asked in three surveys, such as those asking why participants did not have a Pap smear; reasons for not receiving screening results where participants reported that they had been screened and reasons for not receiving treatment following a diagnosis of cervical cancer. These were closed-ended questions with response options categorised as personal reasons (lack of time, low awareness of cancer, lack of awareness of cancer service delivery points, health-seeking behaviour, fear and myths), health system-level factors (unavailability of services, distance to a health facility, poor quality of services, long waiting times, delay in scheduling appointments) and economic factors (cost of transportation and out-of-pocket cost of cancer services). Overall, the content, scope and depth of the questions varied considerably across countries and survey years. For instance, questions on cancer screening in older surveys tended to be limited to whether or not respondents had been screened, whereas more recent surveys often included additional questions, such as those about the outcome of the screening, whether respondents with positive screening had a diagnostic follow-up and if they received treatment following a diagnosis. Table 2 presents examples of questions and how they are worded across each cancer domain.

Table 2. Cancer-specific questions by county and cancer domains.

Cancer type Cancer domains, number of surveys and example of questions
Cancer prevalence Awareness & knowledge Screening and detection Treatment & follow-up Barriers to access to cancer services
Breast cancer (41 surveys) 3 surveys 10 surveys 41 surveys 3 surveys 3 surveys
• Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you have breast cancer? • Have you ever heard of breast cancer?
• Who can get breast cancer: women only, men only, or both men and women?
• What signs or symptoms would lead you to think that a woman has breast cancer?
• Have you ever had a breast cancer test?
• Have you heard of mammography?
• Where did you have your last mammogram?
• Has a doctor or other health professional examined your breasts to detect or check for breast cancer?
• Have you ever examined your breasts to detect or check for breast cancer?
• Have you had a breast cancer clinical exam to detect breast cancer in the last 12 months?
• Did you receive the result of the last mammogram?
• What was the result of the last mammogram?
• Why didn’t you claim the result of the last mammogram?
• Because of the abnormal mammogram result, did you have to undergo a biopsy?
• Did you receive treatment as a result of the mammogram or of the biopsy? • What is the main reason why you have not done mammography?
• What was the main reason you did not receive treatment?
Cervical cancer (54 surveys) 5 surveys 16 surveys 54 surveys 5 surveys 3 surveys
• Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you have cancer of the cervix? • Have you heard of cervical cancer?
• Have you heard about the Human Papilloma Virus—HPV?
• Do you think that the human papillomavirus can cause cervical cancer, also called cervical cancer?
• Have you heard of tests for cervical cancer of the uterus?
• Have you ever had a cervical cancer test?
• In the past 12 months, did you have any cervical cancer screening (Pap smears)?
• You received treatment as a result of the Pap smear or colposcopy—biopsy?
• What should a woman do when the cytology result is abnormal?
• Have you ever had a “Pap” smear to test for cervical cancer?
• What type of exam did you have to see if you have cervical cancer?
• How long ago was your last test for cervical cancer?
• What was the result of your last cervical cancer test?
• The last time you had a Pap smear, did you get the result of the test?
• Have you had any treatment for the cervix or have you made follow-up visits because of the results of the test? • Why hasn’t a pap smear test been taken?
• What was the main reason you did not claim the result of the last cytology?
• Why have you not sought treatment?
Prostate cancer (8 surveys) 1 survey 2 surveys 8 surveys 1 survey 1 survey
• Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you have prostate cancer? • Have you ever heard of prostate cancer? • Have you had prostate examination?
• Has a doctor or health care professional ever examined you to detect or test for prostate cancer?
• Have you ever had a test or exam to see if you have prostate cancer?
• Did you have a biopsy or an ultrasound done to determine the type of tumour?
• What was the result of the biopsy or the ultrasound?
• Did you receive medical treatment for the cancer at the time of the diagnosis? • Are there any services that you need from a health provider that are not covered by NHIS? (prostate cancer screening listed as an option)
Other cancers (40 surveys) 34 surveys 4 surveys 8 surveys 4 surveys 1 survey
• Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you have cancer or tumour?
• Do you suffer from any of the following diseases? (with options including ’cancer)’.
• What type of chronic illness do you have? (with options including ’cancer)
• In the last 12 months, have you received educational information on some of the following topics (options included cancer)?
• In what ways do you believe smoking can cause health problems? (lung and laryngeal cancer as options)
• What signs and symptoms would make you suspect that a person may have cancer?
• Has the doctor/other health professional tested you for cancer?
• Have you ever been screened for cancer of the oral cavity?
• Have you ever been screened for hidden blood in your stool?
• Did you receive medical treatment for the cancer at the time of the diagnosis?
• Have you sought treatment for this condition?
• Are you currently undergoing treatment for cancer?
• Why have you not sought treatment?

Breast cancer

Questions on breast cancer were asked in 41 survey across 17 countries. Of these, questions on breast cancer screening were by far the most commonly asked (41/41 surveys). These included questions asking if survey participants have heard of breast cancer screening, with mammography being the most commonly mentioned screening modality. There were also questions on the practice of clinical breast examination and breast self-examination. However, questions on whether or not participants who had a mammogram received the result of the mammogram; and outcome of the mammogram on the screening results were less commonly asked. Questions on self-reported breast cancer prevalence; asking if respondents had breast cancer or have been diagnosed with breast cancer, were asked in 3 surveys. Breast cancer awareness and knowledge were assessed in 10 surveys. In such questions, participants were asked if they have ever heard of breast cancer; who can get breast cancer; and signs or symptoms of breast cancer. Five surveys included questions on breast cancer treatment; often asking respondents with cancer if they have had any treatment for cancer following a diagnosis.

Questions about barriers to access to cancer services were asked in three surveys. These included those asking why participants did not have a breast cancer screening; reasons for not receiving mammography results and reasons for not accessing treatment following a diagnosis. As in the case of cervical cancer, these were closed-ended questions with response options categorised under personal, health system and economic factors. Overall, the content and scope of the cancer questions varies considerably across countries and survey. Table 2 presents examples of questions and how they are worded across each cancer domain.

Prostate cancer

Prostate cancer questions featured in eight surveys across seven countries. All eight surveys asked respondents if they have had prostate cancer screening. One survey included a question on self-reported prostate cancer prevalence; asking if respondents had prostate cancer or had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Two surveys included questions on prostate cancer awareness, such as those asking participants if they have ever heard of prostate cancer or know the signs or symptoms of prostate cancer. Another survey included a question on prostate cancer treatment; asking respondents if they have had any treatment for prostate cancer following a diagnosis. One survey asked a question about barriers to access to prostate cancer services. See Table 2 for examples of questions as worded across each cancer domain.

Other cancers

Questions on other site-specific cancers and non-site specific cancer were included in a total of 40 surveys across 24 countries. These included questions on malignancies such as colorectal, laryngeal, liver, lung, oral cavity, ovarian and non-site-specific cancers. This aspect likely reflects country-specific cancer burden and priorities other than breast, cervical and prostate cancer; such as questions on oral cavity cancer in India and colorectal cancer in Colombia. Unlike for breast, cervical and prostate cancer for which most questions concerned screening, most of the questions here related to prevalence (34 surveys). These included questions asking respondents if a doctor or other health professional ever told them that they had any cancer or tumour, or if they suffered from any of chronic health conditions (with options including cancer). Questions on cancer screening featured in eight surveys, asking participants in specific age-groups if they have been screened for any cancer (or specific cancers such as cancer of the oral cavity in India, and screening for faecal occult blood for colorectal cancer in Colombia) in the past 12 months.

Questions relating to cancer awareness were included in four surveys. Such questions asked respondents if they received educational information on health topics (options included cancer) and what signs and symptoms would make them suspect that a person may have cancer. Cancer treatment-related questions were asked in four surveys: typically asking respondents if they received treatment for cancer following a cancer diagnosis. Only in one survey were participants asked about barriers to access to cancer services. These included those asking why participants did not have a cancer screening and or receive treatment following a cancer diagnosis (see Table 2).

Cancer risk factors (alcohol consumption and tobacco use)

Survey questionnaires were also searched for questions relating to known cancer risk factors. The majority of all surveys with available final reports and questionnaires, included questions on alcohol consumption and tobacco use, which are known cancer risk factors. Alcohol-related questions were included in 177 DHS surveys to date. These include questions asking participants if they have ever consumed any alcoholic drink, what type of alcoholic drinks and quantity and frequency of consumption. Questions related to tobacco use were included in 198 surveys. Participants were asked if they currently or ever used tobacco products; what kind of tobacco products were used (including cigarettes, e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and chewing tobacco); as well as the quantity and frequency of tobacco use. Notably, these questions were often not asked in the context of cancer, but rather asked in separate sections for substance use. In a few cases, however, participants were asked what ways they believed smoking can cause health problems (with lung and laryngeal cancer as options).

Discussion

This review examines the cancer-specific data collected as part of the DHS in LMICs from the inception of the surveys to date. Overall, findings demonstrate that, though cancer-specific questions have improved in both frequency and depth over the years, only a minority of surveys have featured these questions to date, while substantial gaps remain in the scope of questions asked. Less than half (43.3%) of the 90 countries have conducted at least one DHS survey with one or more cancer-specific questions, with just a quarter (25.6%) of the surveys including at least one cancer-specific question. The review’s findings have implications for the design and implementation of future DHS and similar population-based surveys for collecting useful and context-appropriate data needed to inform cancer control efforts.

In terms of cancer site, cervical cancer questions were the most commonly asked across surveys, followed by those about breast cancer. Questions tended to reflect regional or country-specific cancer burden, such as the preponderance of DHS survey questions on cancer of the cervix in South Africa, colorectal cancer in Colombia and cancer of the oral cavity in India, reflecting the countries’ respective incidence, morbidity and mortality burden of these cancers [1]. The relatively higher occurrence of cervical and breast cancer related questions may reflect the growing burden of both cancers in LMICs [15]. Yet, only a minority of DHS surveys have included questions about both cancers. This represents a missed opportunity to utilise large scale population-based surveys like DHS to collect data that can be used to track the burden and trends of these cancers, given that such opportunities are particularly vital to LMICs where cancer registries and health information systems may be weak or lacking [12, 16]. It is thus imperative that DHS surveys are leveraged as opportunities to collect data not only on the burden of cancer, but also on other important aspects of awareness, prevention, screening and early diagnosis and treatment. To achieve this, there is a need for the DHS surveys to develop and standardise a comprehensive set of questions that can be adapted for different contexts. In line with the WHO’s mandate on using population-based surveys such as the DHS to drive data-informed decision making for cancer prevention and control, this will help facilitate the collection of data for driving cancer control programme planning and evaluation [17].

In terms of specific cancer care and service delivery domains, questions related to cancer screening were the most commonly featured. The scope and depth of the questions varied widely across countries and survey years. One positive finding was that surveys may provide opportunities for informing and educating people on common cancers, such as by describing cancer signs and symptoms. Though survey participants represent a small proportion of the reference populations, including cancer-specific information and questions in surveys may contribute to efforts to increase public knowledge and awareness of common cancers. Surveys often included descriptions of screening methods to respondents before proceeding to ask them if they had recently undergone cancer screening. In most cases, however, questions on cancer screening often did not have additional questions to ask which screening methods respondents had or the outcome of the screening. Moreover, survey participants who reported having a recent cancer screening were seldom asked questions about follow-up and treatment. This trend may reflect the current state of cancer screening in LMICs where such services may not be easily accessible or may have weak referral systems to ensure the follow-up and referral of people with positive screening results [15, 18]. As such, current DHS data may only provide information on cancer screening coverage among the target population, but may not offer information needed by countries to evaluate the effectiveness of their cancer screening programmes beyond coverage estimates. To enhance the availability of data for cancer programme planning, monitoring, and evaluation, we recommend that population-based surveys include a core set of questions measuring cancer screening coverage, screening interval, and follow-up and treatment, all of which can help to strengthen cancer surveillance systems.

As countries strengthen and expand access to their national cancer prevention and control programmes, it is important that they pay due attention to the various barriers to access. The promotion of awareness, early detection and access to treatment of cancer is a pillar of any country’s comprehensive cancer control strategy [19]. A sound understanding of barriers to cancer services is therefore vital for informing interventions and strategies for addressing those barriers [20]. A few DHS questionnaires have included questions to assess respondents’ ability or inability to access cancer services, such as cancer diagnostic and treatment services. DHS surveys thus offer an important tool for assessing barriers to cancer services from nationally-representative samples of participants.

This review found that survey respondents were commonly asked questions on alcohol and tobacco use which are known risk factors of cancer. However, these questions were often not asked in the context of cancer, as they asked in separate sections for substance use. Beyond quantifying the use of these substances, efforts should be made to establish a link between such risk factors and cancer, such as by adding asking additional questions on whether survey participants think the use of these substances is associated with risks of specific cancer types. That linkage can enhance the capacity of cancer control programmes in LMICs to collect and aggregate data on common risk factors and assess their prevalence over time [21]. Such data will be useful for informing and strengthening cancer prevention strategies, while identifying at-risk populations for targeted cancer screening and control initiatives.

While improvements in the frequency and quality of cancer-specific questions in the DHS surveys have many benefits, they have cost and resource implications. Expanding the scope of questions will necessitate the need for additional training of data collectors and will require longer survey time for administer the questionnaires to participants. For this reason and given the resource limitation in most DHS survey contexts, implementers of DHS and similar population-based surveys are likely to consider such resource implications in making decisions on whether to expand the content and scope of survey questionnaires. Nonetheless, it is likely that any cost associated with the expansion of survey questionnaires to accommodate for more useful cancer-specific questions will be offset by the direct and indirect benefits of using the additional data obtained.

Notwithstanding the conceptual and methodological strengths of this review, it has some noteworthy limitations. First, while it used a systematic search strategy and was able to identify all relevant surveys, it is possible that some cancer-specific questions were missed in the search. Secondly, the review focused on the DHS questionnaires and did not assess the broader methodology of the DHS surveys such as by reviewing data collection training manuals and interview guides for a more nuanced understanding of how questions are asked and phrased in practice. Furthermore, it did not review the conceptualisation of survey questions, nor the use of survey data in practice. Finally, we acknowledge that our review did not comprehensively explore questions on cancer risk factors in the surveys beyond alcohol and tobacco use such as household fuel use, a more comprehensive assessment of which will require a much broader search strategy. These limitations therefore provide opportunities for future reviews on this topic to explore.

Conclusions

Though cancer-specific questions have been increasingly included in DHS surveys since 1985, only a minority of surveys have featured these questions to date. To aid the collection of more useful population-level data to inform cancer-control priorities and track progress, there is a need to increase the number of surveys asking cancer related questions, while improving the depth and scope of such questions in future DHS surveys.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the DHS Programme for making the survey questionnaires and relevant information available for use in this study.

Data Availability

DHS survey questionnaires are publicly available as part of final reports published and freely accessible on the DHS Programme’s website (https://dhsprogram.com/Methodology/Survey-Types/DHS-Questionnaires.cfm). All data underlying the findings reported in this review are presented in the manuscript.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021. 71(3): p. 209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Shah SC, Kayamba V, Peek RM Jr, Heimburger D. Cancer Control in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Is It Time to Consider Screening? J Glob Oncol, 2019. 5: p. 1–8. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lancet The. GLOBOCAN 2018: counting the toll of cancer. Lancet, 2018. 392(10152): p. 985. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32252-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mandal R, Basu P. Cancer screening and early diagnosis in low and middle income countries: Current situation and future perspectives. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2018. Dec;61(12):1505–1512. English. doi: 10.1007/s00103-018-2833-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pramesh CS, Badwe RA, Bhoo-Pathy N, Booth CM, Chinnaswamy G, Dare AJ, et al. Priorities for cancer research in low- and middle-income countries: a global perspective. Nature Medicine, 2022. 28(4): p. 649–657. doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-01738-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bray F, Ferlay J, Laversanne M, Brewster DH, Gombe MC, Kohler B, et al. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents: Inclusion criteria, highlights from Volume X and the global status of cancer registration. Int J Cancer, 2015. 137(9): p. 2060–71. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29670 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Laws R, King L, Hardy LL, Milat A, Rissel C, Newson R, et al. Utilization of a population health survey in policy and practice: a case study. Health Res Policy Syst, 2013. 11: p. 4. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-11-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rychetnik L, Bauman A, Laws R, King L, Rissel C, Nutbeam D, et al. Translating research for evidence-based public health: key concepts and future directions. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2012. 66(12): p. 1187–92. doi: 10.1136/jech-2011-200038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Corsi DJ, Neuman M, Finlay JE, Subramanian SV. Demographic and health surveys: a profile. Int J Epidemiol, 2012. 41(6): p. 1602–13. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Footman K, Benova L, Goodman C, Macleod D, Lynch CA, Penn-Kekana L, et al. Using multi-country household surveys to understand who provides reproductive and maternal health services in low- and middle-income countries: a critical appraisal of the Demographic and Health Surveys. Trop Med Int Health, 2015. 20(5): p. 589–606. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12471 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program. Who we are. Available from: https://dhsprogram.com/Who-We-Are/About-Us.cfm. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Siddiqui AH, Zafar SN. Global Availability of Cancer Registry Data. J Glob Oncol, 2018. 4: p. 1–3. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program. Survey database. Available from: https://dhsprogram.com/Methodology/survey-search.cfm?pgtype=char. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.DocTranslator Web site. Available from: https://www.onlinedoctranslator.com/. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.de Sanjose S, Tsu VD. Prevention of cervical and breast cancer mortality in low- and middle-income countries: a window of opportunity. Int J Womens Health, 2019. 11: p. 381–386. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S197115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Omonisi AE, Liu B, Parkin DM. Population-Based Cancer Registration in Sub-Saharan Africa: Its Role in Research and Cancer Control. JCO Glob Oncol, 2020. 6: p. 1721–1728. doi: 10.1200/GO.20.00294 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.World Health Organization (WHO)‎. Improving data for decision-making: a toolkit for cervical cancer prevention and control programmes. WHO. 2018. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/279420. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGOS. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Nnaji CA, Ezenwankwo EF, Kuodi P, Walter FM, Moodley J. Timeliness of diagnosis of breast and cervical cancers and associated factors in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review. BMJ Open, 2022. 12(2): p. e057685. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057685 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Brand NR, Qu LG, Chao A, Ilbawi AM. Delays and Barriers to Cancer Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. Oncologist, 2019. 24(12): p. e1371–e1380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Qu LG, Brand NR, Chao A, Ilbawi AM. Interventions Addressing Barriers to Delayed Cancer Diagnosis in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. Oncologist, 2020. 25(9): p. e1382–e1395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Arem H, Loftfield E. Cancer Epidemiology: A Survey of Modifiable Risk Factors for Prevention and Survivorship. Am J Lifestyle Med, 2018. 12(3): p. 200–210. doi: 10.1177/1559827617700600 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002332.r001

Decision Letter 0

Samiratou Ouédraogo

14 Mar 2023

PGPH-D-22-01991

Collection of cancer-related data in population-based surveys in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the demographic and health surveys

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Nnaji,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 13 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Samiratou Ouédraogo, DPharm, MPH, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

2. Please send a completed 'Competing Interests' statement, including any COIs declared by your co-authors. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist". Otherwise please declare all competing interests beginning with the statement "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:"

3. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format only and remove any figures embedded in your manuscript file. Please also ensure that all files are under our size limit of 10MB.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures 

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures#loc-file-requirement

4. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have done commendable job in examining the cancer-related questions in DHS surveys conducted so far. The research paper is timely and provides useful policy implications for data collection in LMICs, which lack quality data from cancer registries. I have few comments and suggestions for the authors to improve this manuscript.

1. There are few language issues such as " A filtered was ....." in the Methods section.

2. "Peaking at 100%..." What exactly is peaking, please clear the sentence a little more.

3. Results Section- There are few grammatical errors or typos

i) Cervical Cancer: ..

in the past 12 months where. I think it is in "in the past 12 months were".

"In five surveys, respondents were if...."

ii) Breast Cancer

" were asked if they have you ever....

iii) Prostate Cancer

" if they have you ever heard....

iv) Other Cancers

" .... professions ever told them they.... It should be " ... professionals ever told them that they ...

4. DISCUSSION SECTION

.... or may have week. It should be ... or may have weak

5. Why the authors think few questions would have been missed

6. It is a suggestion to include the data on cancer incidence or mortality rate using GLOBOCAN 2020 to shed light on whether the surveyed countries have low or high incidence or mortality rates of cancers for which questions were asked in DHS.

7. It is a suggestion to include geogrphical heatmap of the countries in which DHS survey data is available showing geographically where there is no DHS survey or no cancer related questions to the countries with maximum surveys or maximum cancer related questions.

Reviewer #2: The Demographic and Health Survey gathers a variety of health-related information. While DHS surveys are not designed for cancer surveillance, they can give valuable information for cancer registries, particularly in LMICs where robust cancer registries are lacking. This review provides a concise summary of how cancer questions have been incorporated into DHS. This review is strengthened by the inclusion of countries from different continents and multiple years. This article is well-written and has excellent word flow.

Minor comments.

1. On Page 7: The sentence starting '"Ultimately, findings......would fit in the discussion section.

2. The method section is long, would benefit from subsection e.g Study design, DHS survey structure, Search Strategy and data collection, Data analysis.

3.Minor grammatical errors to correct on page 16 , were vs where,..In five surveys,respondents were *Asked* .Only five surverys included questions on *cervical* cancer treatment.... page 17...if they have ever heard.....

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002332.r003

Decision Letter 1

Prabhdeep Kaur

4 Jul 2023

PGPH-D-22-01991R1

Collection of cancer-related data in population-based surveys in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the demographic and health surveys

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Nnaji,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Kindly make sure to address the major comments about definition of outcomes as raised by the reviewer.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 3rd August, 2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Prabhdeep Kaur, DNB Medicine, MAE (Epidemiology)

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please amend your online Financial Disclosure statement. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: All my comments have been responded to

Reviewer #3: The paper presents an interesting description of cancer related data being collected in DHS globally. DHS do represent a potentially valuable source for NCD surveillance data including on risk factors, screening and treatment. An evaluation is therefore worthwhile.

Major Issues:

My main comment would be related to a clear definition of “cancer -related data”. It has not been clearly defined. This being the main outcome variable, needs to be defined. For example cancer related risk factors are covered in the paper, as a peripheral issue. Number of sexual partners is a known behavioural risk factor for cervical cancer, oral pill use has implications for cancer. Household fuel use also fits the bill as a risk factor for cancer and is usually collected in DHS.

Search strategy does not list them though (line 150) says in the third step it was included? Not sure how anything that is not included in first step can be included in third step.

Either the title and scope of the paper should be changed, or the definition revised. Either way a clear definition is a MUST.

Minor issues:

Table 1 can be revised to leave out the countries that do not have any survey on cancer related data. These countries can be added as a legend (with years of survey in brackets) to make the table more reader friendly. Else it is made as a supplementary table. Fig 4 provides the same information.

Figure 2 & 3 can be combined and rather than individual years can be given in blocks of 3 years. It gives a wrong impression when the authors say that in 2021 100% of the surveys asked cancer questions as the number of surveys is 2 and in the previous two years (2019-20), it was quite low. It can be expressed either as numbers or percentages. The figure was not clear in black and white.

It is not clear how the authors suggestion of linking RF questions with cancer related section (line 362-366). Authors need to explain this more.

336-338. I would say that surveys provide an opportunity to educate people as the population covered is miniscule as compared to the whole population.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Anand Krishnan

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002332.r005

Decision Letter 2

Prabhdeep Kaur

7 Aug 2023

Collection of cancer-specific data in population-based surveys in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the demographic and health surveys

PGPH-D-22-01991R2

Dear Dr Nnaji

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Collection of cancer-specific data in population-based surveys in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the demographic and health surveys' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Prabhdeep Kaur, DNB Medicine, MAE (Epidemiology)

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_PGPH-D-22-01991R1.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    DHS survey questionnaires are publicly available as part of final reports published and freely accessible on the DHS Programme’s website (https://dhsprogram.com/Methodology/Survey-Types/DHS-Questionnaires.cfm). All data underlying the findings reported in this review are presented in the manuscript.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES