Table 3.

Description of targeted interventions across three countries

Country; paper	Intervention	Findings
Sweden; Alfonzo (2016)33	Women who were to be invited for screening were randomised 1:1, to receive an invitation either stating that the test was free (intervention group) or that it cost 100 SEK (control group)	Researchers discovered no significant differences between women who were charged and those offered free screening (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02). There were also no variances within the districts, age and attendance after the most recent previous invitation or previous experience of smear-taking
Denmark; Jensen (2009)34	Normal letter at 3 y intervals to all women + a specific targeted letter to non-attendees + GP received visit by facilitators/advocates	The decline in non-attendees was 0.87% after 9 mo in favour of the intervention. A difference of 0.94% in the change of coverage rate was observed at 6 mo, which increased to 1.97% at 9 mo in favour of the intervention
Nigeria; Okeke (2013)32	1. Scratch cards offered to women to provide screening at N0, N50 (US$0.33) and N100 (US$0.66)	Women who were randomly selected to receive the conditional cancer treatment subsidy were about 4% more likely to accept cervical cancer screening
	2. Lottery tickets for treatment subsidies
Nigeria; Obi (2007)27	The intervention was described as a ‘highly subsidised’ screening programme in Enugu. The nature of the subsidy was not described	Authors report poor participation as <1% (932 women) of the target population were reached
Nigeria; Adepoju (2016)26	Free cervical cancer screening programme sponsored by the Osun State government	Uptake of cervical cancer screening was low
Nigeria; Bassey (2008)30	In the period under study, screening was free of charge at three selected hospitals in Uyo	The study reports poor participation of the target population as only 332 women participated in the 5 y when free monthly screening was offered