Table 3. Types of outcomes reported.
| Type of model | Patient Outcomes | N | Process Outcomes | N |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Within clinic integration | Numbers offered CaCx screening | 9 | Proportion screened within 1 year of HIV diagnosis | 1 |
| Proportion accepting CaCx screening | 4 | Proportion followed up annually | 2 | |
| CaCx screening results | 9 | Number of staff trained | 3 | |
| Proportion offered cryotherapy | 6 | Loss to follow up | 5 | |
| Proportion referred for larger lesions and treatment | 6 | Screening uptake by type of clinic or region | 3 | |
| Proportion offered colposcopy | 3 | Proportion treated with cryotherapy same day | 3 | |
| Proportion taking up colposcopy | 1 | Complications/severe adverse events | 2 | |
| Pathology results | 3 | VIA positive rates over time | 1 | |
| Cancer diagnosis | 4 | Proportion of service providers offering screening over time by type of provider | 1 | |
| Reasons for declining CaCx screening | 1 | Proportion screened for CaCx versus national screening program over time | 1 | |
| CD4 counts | 2 | Staff satisfaction | 1 | |
| Proportion on HAART/ART | 1 | Provider barriers | 4 | |
| Proportion with STI | 3 | |||
| Perceived patient barriers | 2 | |||
| Proportion with high risk HPV infections/types of HPV | 1 | |||
| Coordination through colocation | Numbers offered CaCx screening | 5 | Loss to follow up | 2 |
| Proportion accepting CaCx screening | 1 | Proportion undergoing cryotherapy same day | 1 | |
| CaCx screening results | 5 | Proportion returned for follow up | 1 | |
| Proportion on HAART/ART | 2 | Probability model of program effectiveness | 1 | |
| Proportion referred for further CaCx diagnostics or treatment | 4 | Sensitivity and specificity of nurse screening assessment | 1 | |
| Patient barriers for uptake of support | 1 | |||
| CaCx pathology results | 3 | |||
| Cancer diagnosis | 2 | |||
| Proportion CaCx screen positive at follow up screening | 1 | |||
| Complex coordination | Numbers offered CaCx screening | 6 | Loss to follow up | 3 |
| Proportion accepting CaCx screening | 3 | Proportion diagnosed using Colposcopy vs. LEEP | 1 | |
| CaCx screening results | 5 | Probability model of number of cancer cases prevented | 1 | |
| Proportion taking up CaCx treatment | 1 | Numbers screened for HIV over time | 1 | |
| Proportion referred for CaCx diagnostics and treatment | 3 | Proportion followed up with repeat CaCx screening over time and outcomes | 1 | |
| Proportion referred for larger CaCx lesions and treatment | 1 | Hazard of recurrence of CaCx | 1 | |
| CaCx pathology results | 1 | Proportion followed up annually | 1 | |
| Cancer diagnosis | 3 | Proportions followed up | 1 | |
| Numbers offered HIV screening | 1 | Proportion accepting CaCx screening by type of clinic or region | 1 | |
| Proportion accepting HIV screening | 1 | Proportion treated with cryotherapy same day | 1 | |
| Reasons for not offering HIV screening | 1 | Numbers screened for CaCx over time | 1 | |
| Reasons for declining HIV screening | 1 | |||
| Complications | 1 | |||
| Patient barriers to uptake | 3 |
Abbreviations: ART: Antiretroviral Therapy, CaCx: cervical cancer, HAART: Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy, LEEP: Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure, STI: sexually transmitted infections
N: The number of studies that reported this outcome, by model of integration