You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 12, Issue 2
  • Timeliness of diagnosis of breast and cervical cancers and associated factors in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review

Article Text

Article menu
Oncology
Original research
Timeliness of diagnosis of breast and cervical cancers and associated factors in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review
  1. Chukwudi A Nnaji1,2,
  2. Elochukwu F Ezenwankwo1,2,
  3. Paul Kuodi3,
  4. Fiona M Walter4,5,
  5. Jennifer Moodley1,2
  1. 1Women’s Health Research Unit, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town Faculty of Health Sciences, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa
  2. 2Cancer Research Initiative, University of Cape Town Faculty of Health Sciences, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa
  3. 3Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Lira University, Lira, Uganda
  4. 4Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
  5. 5Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Chukwudi A Nnaji; nnjchu001{at}myuct.ac.za

Abstract

Objectives Addressing the barriers to early breast and cervical cancer diagnosis in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) requires a sound understanding and accurate assessment of diagnostic timeliness. This review aimed to map the current evidence on the time to breast and cervical cancer diagnosis and associated factors in LMICs.

Design Scoping review.

Sources MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, Scopus and CINAHL.

Eligibility criteria Studies describing the time to diagnosis and associated factors in the context of breast and cervical cancer in LMICs published from 1 January 2010 to 20 May 2021.

Study selection and data synthesis Two reviewers independently screened all abstracts and full texts using predefined inclusion criteria. The review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Evidence was narratively synthesised using predefined themes.

Results Twenty-six studies conducted across 24 LMICs were included in the review, most (24/26) of which focused on breast cancer. Studies varied considerably in their conceptualisation and assessment of diagnostic time, events, intervals and delays, with a minority of the studies reporting the use of validated methods and tools. Patient-related intervals and delays were more frequently evaluated and reported than provider-related and health system-related intervals and delays. Across studies, there were variations in the estimated lengths of the appraisal, help-seeking, patient and diagnostic intervals for both cancers and the factors associated with them.

Conclusions Despite the significant burden of breast and cervical cancer in LMICs, there is limited information on the timeliness of diagnosis of these cancers. Major limitations included variations in conceptualisation and assessment of diagnostic events and intervals. These underscore the need for the use of validated and standardised tools, to improve accuracy and translation of findings to better inform interventions for addressing diagnostic delays in LMICs.

  • breast tumours
  • public health
  • quality in health care
  • diagnostic radiology

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057685

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • This scoping review was conducted in accordance with an enhanced evidence synthesis methodology and reported using standard reporting guidelines.

    • This review updates the evidence base relating to the nature of the time to diagnosis of breast and cervical cancer and associated factors in low and middle-income countries.

    • Literature searches were comprehensive, covering both peer-reviewed and relevant grey literature.

    • Due to the broad nature of the topic, it is possible that not all relevant evidence sources were identified by the search strategy, however comprehensive.

    Introduction

    Breast and cervical cancer constitute a growing public health burden globally.1 2 The incidence, morbidity and mortality burdens of both cancers are disproportionately high among women in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).2 3 Breast cancer is the most commonly occurring cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths among women worldwide, with an age-standardised incidence rate (ASIR) of 31 per 1 00 000 women in LMICs.4 5 Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women, with an ASIR of 16 per 1 00 000 women.2 Cancer survival rates are low in LMICs, the major attributable factors of which include late-stage diagnosis and suboptimal access to quality healthcare.1 6

    Timely diagnosis is critical for optimising patients’ navigation of the pathway from cancer symptom awareness to treatment, and improving survival.7–9 However, the majority of breast and cervical cancers are diagnosed at a late stage when treatment is often less effective and more expensive.10–12 In LMICs, barriers to timely cancer diagnosis include individual and disease-related factors as well as health system constraints.13–15 Individual-level factors may include demographic, behavioural and psychosocial factors, in addition to those associated with underlying sociocultural barriers to timely diagnosis, such as lay beliefs that cancers are contagious and that they are inevitably fatal.16 17 Disease-related factors include those related to the site, size, clinical manifestation and growth of tumours.15 Health system factors in LMICs include health policy, access, quality and service delivery barriers, such as inadequate diagnostic capacity, weak referral systems, supoptimal access to treatment and insufficient human resources.6 18 19 While there is substantial evidence on the association between these factors and cancer diagnostic delays, not much is known about the extent to which they influence time to diagnosis and diagnostic intervals, particularly in LMICs.

    Various approaches and tools have been used for assessing time to diagnosis and diagnostic intervals, while their use in LMICs has grown over the years.17 19 20 However, the tools commonly used often ignore existing models of patient behaviour and are poorly or inadequately validated.15 21 22 To bolster better conceptual understanding of patient’s navigation, Walter, Scott and colleagues proposed a Model of Pathways to Treatment that describes the distinct phases of cancer patients’ pathways from symptom awareness to diagnosis and treatment.15 22 To aid the development of valid tools for measuring time to cancer diagnosis, the Aarhus checklist has been proposed for guiding the design and reporting of early cancer diagnosis studies.23

    A good understanding of the timeliness of breast or cervical cancer diagnosis, the diagnostic intervals and associated factors is important to guide interventions for addressing the growing public health problem of diagnostic delays in LMICs.24–26 In 2017, the WHO published the WHO Guide to Cancer Early Diagnosis to provide a global standard for addressing barriers that may impede timely cancer diagnosis and treatment.27 28 Addressing these barriers requires an accurate assessment and understanding of the time to diagnosis, related intervals and the multidimensional factors associated with the timeliness of diagnosis.28

    This review aims to provide an updated and comprehensive synthesis of the evidence on the time to diagnosis and its associated factors, in the context of symptomatic breast and cervical cancer diagnosis in LMICs. It contributes a systematically organised evidence summary for health policymakers, cancer programme managers, oncologists and other cancer care providers for guiding policy and practice decision-making. In addition, the findings will be useful for informing the design of interventions and strategies for addressing existing breast and cervical cancer diagnostic delays in resource-limited settings, while identifying gaps for future research efforts at measuring and appraising diagnostic timeliness.

    Methods and analysis

    Conceptual framework

    This scoping review used the Model of Pathways to Treatment to map the identified evidence on the timeliness, time intervals and associated factors of breast and cervical cancer diagnosis.15 22 The framework specifies the essential events, processes and time intervals that may occur in the period prior to diagnosis and the start of medical treatment and identifies the factors that may influence each interval.

    Study design

    The design of this study was guided by Arksey and O'Malley’s scoping review methodology,29 as enhanced by Levac and colleagues.30 The enhanced framework involves six stages for undertaking a scoping review: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying the relevant studies (defining the inclusion and exclusion criteria), (3) searching and selecting the evidence, (4) charting the evidence, (5) collating, summarising and reporting the evidence and (6) consultation with relevant stakeholders. The review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.31 Full details of the study design have been published elsewhere.32

    Data sources

    The literature search was guided by the review objectives and the population, concept and content (PCC) criteria. The search strategy was developed with guidance from a health sciences subject librarian and applied in accordance with the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies guidelines.33 The search strategy was pretested prior to the actual search. Search terms and free-text words were combined using the Boolean operators ‘AND’ and ‘OR’. Search terms included the use of controlled descriptors (such as MeSH terms, CINAHL and headings) and their synonyms. In order to restrict search to LMICs, a location filter containing all countries currently classified as part of LMICs and synonymous geographical, regional and economic categorisations were incorporated. The search strategy, as applied to the various literature databases, is outlined in the online supplemental appendix. More details of the search strategy are described in the review protocol published elsewhere.32

    A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)), Scopus, CINAHL and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Additionally, relevant grey literature sources were searched for potentially eligible articles, including the publication database of the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the Cancer Atlas of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) and the Global Cancer Project Map. A hand-search of reference lists of included studies was conducted. For recency, only articles published from 1 January 2010 to the last date of search (20 May 2021) were considered eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Non-English potentially eligible articles would have been translated using a Web-based translation tool.34

    Eligibility criteria

    Inclusion criteria were defined using the PCC framework, proposed by Peters and colleagues.35 Eligible population included women with breast or cervical cancer and healthcare providers (HCP) in LMIC contexts. The definition of LMICs was based on the World Bank’s current classification using per capita gross national income.36 The concepts of interest were time to diagnosis and diagnostic intervals of breast and/or cervical cancers. To be considered eligible for inclusion, studies need to have measured time to diagnosis in the context of breast and/or cervical cancer diagnosis in LMICs, using specific methods, tools or strategies; and/or assessed diagnostic intervals of breast and/or cervical cancers; whether or not they evaluated the factors associated with diagnostic time or time intervals. Multinational literature involving LMIC and non-LMIC countries and meeting inclusion criteria were eligible for inclusion, except where country-specific information could not be abstracted. Similarly, articles involving multiple cancer types were eligible for inclusion, except relevant cancer type-specific information could not be abstracted.

    Articles focused solely or mainly on theoretical and conceptual understanding of timeliness of breast or cervical cancer diagnosis were excluded, as were those assessing cancer patient pathways that are not related to diagnostic time and intervals. Studies focused primarily on screening of asymptomatic individuals were also excluded. Study design eligibility included randomised trials, non-randomised trials and observational studies, with or without controls. Only primary studies were included, while systematic, scoping reviews and other forms of aggregated evidence were excluded.

    Study selection

    The review process consisted of two levels of screening. For the first level of screening, two reviewers (CAN and PK) independently screened the titles and abstracts of all retrieved records from the search output. Articles considered relevant by either or both of the reviewers were included in the full-text assessment. Following the removal of duplicates, full texts of remaining studies were retrieved. In the second step, the two reviewers (CAN and EFE) independently assessed the full-texts to determine whether they met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Disagreements in eligibility assessment were resolved through consensus between.

    Data extraction

    Two reviewers (CAN and EFE) independently abstracted data from all included studies using a standardised data abstraction tool, adapted from the framework proposed by Carlos and colleagues.37 The tool includes four domains: (1) study identification details (article title, journal title, authors, country of the study, language, publication year, host institution of the study), (2) methodological characteristics (study design, study objective or research question or hypothesis, sample characteristics (eg, sample size, sex, age, ethnicity, groups and controls, follow-up duration, validation of measures, statistical analyses), (3) main findings and (4) conclusions. Study eligibility was reverified at the start of/during data extraction. Any discrepancies in the abstracted data between the two reviewers were resolved by discussion. CAN combined the two spreadsheets of abstracted data for analysis. JM and FMW reviewed analysed data for accuracy and consistency with protocol.

    Data analysis

    Findings were narratively summarised and reported based on themes that emerged from the charted evidence. Where applicable, quantitative evidence was aggregated using summary statistics. Time to diagnosis and diagnostic intervals were described based on the Model of Pathways to Treatment.15 22 The Model also allowed for the assessment of patient; HCP and health system and disease-related factors that could influence diagnostic timeliness.

    Patient and public involvement

    Patients or the public were not involved in this research.

    Results

    Search results

    A total of 10 591 records were identified from literature database searches. After the removal of duplicates, there were 9347 unique records. These were screened by their titles and abstracts, following which 9174 clearly ineligible publications were excluded. The full texts of the remaining 173 potentially eligible studies were reviewed against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria; 26 of which were included in the review, while 147 were excluded for various reasons. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flowchart of the study selection process and reasons for exclusion.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    PRISMA flowchart of the study selection process. LMICs, low and middle-income countries; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses.

    Characteristics of included studies

    Online supplemental table 1 describes the characteristics of included studies. Most (24/26) of the studies were focused on breast cancer, with only two focusing on cervical cancer. The studies were published between 2011 and 2020, conducted across 24 LMICs across the regions of Africa, Europe, Latin America, Middle-East Asia and South-East Asia. The following countries (number of studies) were represented: Bulgaria (1), Colombia (1), Ethiopia (3), Haiti (1), India (2), Iran (1), Libya (1), Malaysia (2), Mali (1), Mexico (1), Namibia (1), Nepal (1), Nigeria (3), Peru (1), Pakistan (3), Russia (1), Rwanda (1), Serbia (1), South Africa (2), Sudan (1), Thailand (1), Turkey (1), Uganda (1) and Zambia (1). Figure 2 illustrates the geographical distribution of included studies.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Geographical distribution of included studies.

    Nearly, all (24/26) of the studies included were quantitative in design, including cross-sectional (21), cohort-type longitudinal (2) and case–control (1) studies. One study had a mixed-methods cross-sectional design, while another was a qualitative study. Most (24/26) of studies primarily focused on breast cancer, whereas the remaining two focused on cervical cancer. Participants were mostly adult women with newly diagnosed breast or cervical cancer. All of the studies were conducted within healthcare settings, of which 18 were urban, 3 were rural and 5 were both rural and urban.

    Methods of diagnosis

    In the majority (20/26) of the studies, diagnosis was defined based on pathological or histological confirmation.7 18 19 38–54 The rest of the studies relied on clinical assessment as a diagnostic modality.55–60

    Methods/tools used for assessing diagnostic timeliness and intervals

    Online supplemental table 1 describes the various methods and tools used for assessing diagnostic timeliness and intervals across studies. In most (23/26) of the studies, diagnostic events, timeliness and intervals were assessed using questionnaires or interviews that relied on participants’ recall,7 18 19 38–56 59 seven of which combined patients’ reports obtained from questionnaires or interviews with diagnostic information derived from facility-based medical records.40 43 50 52–54 59 Three studies assessed diagnostic events and intervals using medical records.38 57 60

    To define diagnostic time and intervals, 14 studies relied on authors’ definition18 38–41 44 45 49 52–54 57 59 while four adopted definitions from previous studies.47 50 51 56 Four studies adopted the Model of Pathways to Treatment,7 19 43 55 three studies adopted the Aarhus Statement,42 46 55 while two studies adopted the Anderson Model.48 58

    The studies varied considerably in the use of common terminologies relating to diagnostic events and intervals. Only two studies defined the appraisal interval (time between discovery of symptoms and perceiving reasons to seek help) and help-seeking interval (time between symptom recognition and first HCP consultation) as separate intervals as defined by the Model of Pathways to Treatment.7 55 Most other studies combined both appraisal and help-seeking intervals as a single interval (time between symptom recognition and first HCP visit/consultation). Varying terminologies were used across studies to refer to this single interval, including help-seeking interval,43 55 patient (-related) interval (also patient delay or patient time),7 18 42 44–47 49–54 58 59 time to action,56 precontact time,41 consultation time40 48 and presentation interval.60 Table 1 describes how diagnostic timeliness and intervals were defined across studies.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Diagnostic timeliness and intervals as assessed by included studies

    Diagnostic interval was defined in various ways across studies: the time commencing from the point of symptom detection to diagnosis,40 48 57 time from first clinical consultation to diagnosis7 18 19 41 42 44 47 49 50 52 54 and time from first presentation at a diagnostic centre to diagnosis.46 Notably, the diagnostic interval was also referred to as primary care interval (time between first HCP visit and first specialist visit).44 46 55 Less than half (10/26) of the studies defined total diagnostic interval (time from symptom detection to diagnosis).19 38–41 44 47 48 50 55

    Similarly, the thresholds for defining intervals as delayed also varied across studies. Notably, a patient interval was considered as delayed if longer than 2 months in one study,44 whereas two other studies considered it as delayed if longer than 3 months.49 53 Likewise, a diagnostic interval was considered as delayed if longer than 7 days44 but considered as delayed if longer than 1 month53 and longer than 2 months49 in other studies.

    Breast cancer intervals

    Appraisal and help-seeking intervals as separate intervals

    Only one study assessed appraisal interval (between the detection of breast symptoms to first disclosure, eg, to partners, family and friends) and help-seeking interval (between symptom detection and first HCP visit) as separate intervals.55 The study found a median appraisal interval of 6 days (approximately 1 week) and a median help-seeking interval of 6 weeks among women (N=420) with breast cancer in Nigeria.

    Patient interval (combination of appraisal and help-seeking intervals)

    In most (22/24) of the studies focusing on breast cancer, appraisal and help-seeking intervals were assessed together as a single ‘patient interval’ or ‘time to action’ (between the detection of breast symptoms and first HCP visit). The interval ranged from 10 days among breast cancer patients in Mexico (N=886)52 to 2 weeks in Thailand (N=180)18; 3 weeks in Colombia (N=242)47 and South Africa (N=201)7; 4 weeks in Ethiopia (N=441)42; 8 weeks in Malaysia (N=328)48; 10 weeks in Malaysia (N=340)54; 16 weeks in India (N=435)53 and Libya (N=200)40; 19 weeks in Mali (N=124)43; 20 weeks in Rwanda (N=144)50; 23 weeks in South Africa (N=20)19; 28 weeks in Peru (N=113)51; 48 weeks in Sudan (N=63)58; 63 weeks in Pakistan (N=449)59 and 81 weeks in Ethiopia (N=55).56 One multicountry study (N=1429) assessed patient intervals for Namibia (1 week in non-black women and 5 weeks in Black women), Nigeria (15 weeks), Uganda (14 weeks) and Zambia (4 weeks).41 Another multi-country study (N=6588) reported patient intervals for Bulgaria (19 weeks), India (24 weeks), Russia (19 weeks), Serbia (18 weeks) and Turkey (19 weeks).45

    Diagnostic interval

    The majority (16/24) of the studies focusing on breast cancer measured diagnostic intervals (between the first HCP visit and diagnosis of breast cancer). The interval ranged from 3 weeks in Mali (N=124)43 and Thailand (N=180)18; to 4 weeks in South Africa (N=201)7 and Malaysia (N=340)54; 8 weeks in Colombia (N=242)47; 10 weeks in Ethiopia (N=441)42; 13 weeks in another South African study (N=20)19; 15 weeks in Nigeria (N=420)55; 18 weeks in Mexico (N=886)52; 20 weeks in Rwanda (N=144)50 and 22 weeks in Malaysia (N=328).48 One multicountry study (N=1429) assessed diagnostic intervals for Namibia (3 weeks in non-black women and 8 weeks in Black women), Nigeria (1 week), Uganda (19 weeks) and Zambia (10 weeks).41

    Diagnostic endpoints varied across studies, with pathology (histology) being the most commonly used method, while a minority defined diagnosis based on clinical and/or radiological assessment.

    Total diagnostic interval (combination of appraisal, help-seeking and diagnostic intervals)

    A minority (7/24) breast cancer studies assessed total diagnostic interval (between the awareness of symptoms and diagnosis). This interval ranged from 15 weeks in Colombia (N=242)47; to 21 weeks in Iran (N=505)39; 30 weeks in Libya (N=200)40; 34 weeks in Nigeria (N=420)55; 36 weeks in South Africa (N=20)19; 60 weeks in Rwanda (N=144).50 One multicountry study (N=1429) reported total diagnostic intervals for Namibia (10 weeks in non-black women and 26 weeks in Black women), Nigeria (22 weeks), Uganda (45 weeks) and Zambia (33 weeks).41 Table 2 summarises the intervals.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Diagnostic intervals and factors associated with diagnostic timeliness

    Cervical cancer intervals

    Appraisal and help-seeking intervals as separate intervals

    Neither of the two cervical studies assessed appraisal interval (between the detection of cervical symptoms to first disclosure, for example, to partners, family and friends) and help-seeking interval (between symptom detection and first HCP visit) as separate intervals.

    Patient interval (combination of appraisal and help-seeking intervals)

    One of the two cervical cancer studies assessed appraisal and help-seeking intervals together as a single ‘patient interval’ (between the detection of cervical symptoms and first HCP visit). It found a patient interval of 10 weeks among women (N=110) with cervical cancer in Nepal.44

    Diagnostic interval

    One cervical cancer study evaluated diagnostic intervals (between the first HCP visit and diagnosis). It found an interval of 8 weeks among women with cervical cancer in Nepal (N=110).44

    Total diagnostic interval (combination of appraisal, help-seeking and diagnostic intervals)

    Both cervical cancer studies assessed total diagnostic interval (between the awareness of symptoms and diagnosis). The interval was 22 weeks in a cohort of women in Nepal (N=110)44 and 30 weeks in Ethiopia (N=1575).38

    Factors associated with diagnostic timeliness

    Appraisal and health-seeking intervals

    Online supplemental table 2 summarises the factors associated with diagnostic timeliness and interval lengths across studies. Women who reported the presence of a family history of breast cancer,59 women who reported the fear of breast cancer45 and those that initially visited private clinics/tertiary hospitals43 tended to have shorter help-seeking intervals. Also, being employed,45 receiving supports from family/friends,45 living in big cities,45 receiving correct advice,55 presence of a large tumor55 and worsening of, or development of new symptoms56 were associated with shorter health-seeking interval. Longer help-seeking intervals were associated with not practising self-breast examination,40 51 older age,40 42 50 not receiving a cervical examination at first consultation,44 living in rural areas or farther away from cities,38 52 having ≥5 children,42 low health literacy level,7 40 42 58–60 use of traditional/complementary medicine,42 50 54 59 lower socioeconomic status42 52 58 59 and living in denial.7 52 Higher family income,18 fear of high treatment cost,60 self-medication,18 non-disclosure52 and seeking medical advice from family or friends18 were also associated with longer help-seeking intervals.

    Diagnostic interval

    Shorter diagnostic delay was associated with higher educational level,39 urban residence,39 ability to conduct self-breast examination39 and self-detection of lump.39 On the other hand, longer diagnostic interval was associated with wrong attribution of symptoms,41 48 low heath literacy,19 41 44 53 symptom denial,7 presence of comobidities,7 unemployment,18 46 lower socioeconomic status,41 52 53 older age,18 44 46 47 49 being unmarried,41 49 lay beliefs,41 residing far from a health facility41 44 53 and longer travel time.18 Other factors associated with longer diagnostic interval were lack of cervical examination at first consultation,44 seeking care from multiple health practitioners and complementary/alternative care before diagnosis,18 46 48 50 54 health-seeking in government subsidised facilities,47 referral delays,53 false-negative diagnosis48 53 and poor treatment behaviour.48 Notably, patients who initially visited private clinics/tertiary hospitals tended to have shorter help-seeking intervals but longer diagnostic delays.43

    Discussion

    Addressing the barriers to early diagnosis of breast and cervical cancer requires a sound understanding of diagnostic timeliness, intervals and delays and the factors associated with them. This review offers up-to-date evidence with which to bolster that understanding. Overall, it demonstrates that patient-related and health-system-related delays are common in LMICs. However, it is difficult to infer and compare findings across studies owing to variations in how diagnostic time, events, intervals and delays were conceptualised and assessed. While the amount of evidence identified points to the substantial and growing attention paid to early breast and cervical cancer in LMICs over the past decade, this review has also identified gaps both in terms of quantity and methodological diversity of the available literature.

    The current evidence shows a dearth of studies evaluating the timeliness of cervical cancer diagnosis, with only two of such studies identified in this review (constituting <10% of studies found). This is despite the substantial burden of cervical cancer and late-stage diagnosis in LMICs.1–5 Consistent with finding from previous reviews of cancer diagnostic delays,10 61 a major methodological issue identified by this review is the marked variability in the conceptualisation and operationalisation of the time to diagnosis and corresponding intervals. In spite of the availability of validated tools and methods for evaluating cancer diagnostic timeliness, a minority of the studies reported the use of such tools in the context of breast and cervical cancer—including the Anderson model,48 58 the Model of Pathways to Treatment7 19 43 55 and the Aarhus Statement.42 46

    The studies varied considerably in the use of common terminologies relating to diagnostic events and intervals. There were also variations in the thresholds used for defining delays. For instance, a patient interval was considered as delayed if longer than 2 months in one study,44 whereas two other studies considered it as delayed if longer than 3 months.49 53 Similarly, different time points were used to define intervals. For instance, the end point for diagnosis was operationalised as the date of diagnosis based on clinical or imaging evaluation in some studies, while it was the date of pathological diagnosis in others. It is, therefore, important to standardise methods of assessing and reporting of diagnostic end points, one approach of which are the European Network of Cancer Registries guidelines.62 The wide discrepancy between the estimated patient-related intervals of 4 weeks and 81 weeks among women with breast cancer in Ethiopia, as reported by two different studies,42 56 starkly reflects such within-country variations. These further complicate the interpretation and comparison of findings across studies.

    Patient-related intervals and delays were more frequently evaluated and reported than provider-related and health system-related ones. This is consistent with the findings of a previous review on cancer diagnostic delays in LMICs.10 The trend may be a reflection of the patient-sided way in which diagnostic delays are currently perceived in LMICs and underscores the need for more balanced and system-wide approaches to assessing and understanding the barriers to early diagnosis of breast and cervical cancer diagnostic. It also has important implications for policy and practice. For instance, focusing on patient-centred strategies such as improving awareness, without addressing provider-related and health system-related factors, may yield limited results.

    It is noteworthy that most of the studies that assessed and reported patient-related intervals did not evaluate the appraisal interval as a distinct form of patient-related interval, but rather assessed the appraisal and help-seeking intervals as a single interval. Only two studies made such distinction.7 55 This highlights the need for more attention to be paid to this interval among women with breast and cervical cancer symptoms as a distinct and important aspect of their journey from symptom awareness to treatment. To develop evidence-based policies and holistic interventions for addressing diagnostic delays and barriers to early cancer diagnosis in LMICs, it is imperative to understand the time and events that characterise patients’ journey from the perception of bodily changes to discerning the need and urgency to seek help, as these will ultimately influence time to diagnosis and treatment.

    Our review also identified a multiplicity of patient and health system-related factors associated with diagnostic timeliness and delay across specific diagnostic intervals. While the factors influencing one interval (such as the help-seeking interval) might be distinct (at least empirically) from those affecting other intervals (such as the diagnostic or provider interval), this may not be so in practice as the length of each interval is likely to be the result of a complex interplay between patient and health system drivers. For instance, women may delay help-seeking not only due to patient‐related factors (such as having a low level of cancer awareness) but also due to health-system factors such as the non-availability of a health facility or HCPs.

    Likewise, women with symptoms of cancer presenting at health facilities may delay definitive diagnosis following referral, due to fear of the consequences of being diagnosed with cancer (such as mastectomy, stigma and death). Hence, it is essential that these interrelationships are taken into consideration when conceptualising, evaluating and interpreting diagnostic intervals and the factors associated with them. We again emphasise the importance of standardising the assessment and reporting of cancer diagnostic intervals, to improve the translation of research findings and to better inform interventions for addressing the growing public health challenge of delayed breast and cervical cancer in resource-limited settings.

    Limitations

    While our review adds significantly to the existing body of literature on cancer diagnostic timeliness in LMIC contexts, it is not without limitations. First, as has been acknowledged earlier, the heterogeneous nature of the studies and the use of non-standardised methods limit the interpretation and comparability of findings. Besides, the small sample size and non-representativeness of participants of some of the studies limited both internal and external validity of the studies, making it difficult to interpret findings in the context of their reference geographic populations.

    The cross-sectional retrospective nature of many of the studies and the reliance on patients’ recall to estimate events such as the time they first discovered their symptoms come with the risk of recall bias. These also come with the potential of social desirability bias that can lead to underestimation of patient and diagnostic delays. Another important limitation of this review is that, as in most scoping reviews, a formal quality appraisal of included literature was not conducted. As such, the strength of the evidence cannot be ascertained. Finally, while our literature search was comprehensive, it is possible that the review did not include all relevant literatures available, as some may not have been accessible at the time search.

    Conclusions

    Despite the significant burden of breast and cervical cancer in LMICs, there is limited evidence on the timeliness of diagnosis of both cancers. Available evidence demonstrates between-country and within-country variations in how diagnostic timeliness and intervals of breast and cervical cancer are conceptualised and measured in LMICs. Such variations underscore the need for the increased use of validated and standardised tools for assessing diagnostic timeliness in more reproducible and comparable ways to more accurately inform interventions for addressing the growing public health problem of diagnostic delays in LMICs.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    This study does not involve human participants.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors wish to thank Namhla Madini of the Faculty of Health Sciences Library, University of Cape Town, for the support and guidance in developing the literature search strategy.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration,
      2. Fitzmaurice C,
      3. Abate D, et al
      . Global, regional, and National cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and Disability-Adjusted life-years for 29 cancer groups, 1990 to 2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol 2019;5:1749–68.doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2996pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31560378
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. de Sanjose S,
      2. Tsu VD
      . Prevention of cervical and breast cancer mortality in low- and middle-income countries: a window of opportunity. Int J Womens Health 2019;11:381–6.doi:10.2147/IJWH.S197115pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31308762
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Demment MM,
      2. Peters K,
      3. Dykens JA, et al
      . Developing the evidence base to inform best practice: a scoping study of breast and cervical cancer reviews in low- and middle-income countries. PLoS One 2015;10:e0134618. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134618pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26325181
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Bray F,
      2. Ferlay J,
      3. Soerjomataram I, et al
      . Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394–424.doi:10.3322/caac.21492pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30207593
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. GLOBOCAN
      . Cancer today, 2018. Available: http://gco.iarc.fr/today/home [Accessed 26 Mar 2021].
    6. ↵
      1. Dalton M,
      2. Holzman E,
      3. Erwin E, et al
      . Patient navigation services for cancer care in low-and middle-income countries: a scoping review. PLoS One 2019;14:e0223537-e. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0223537pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31622363
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Moodley J,
      2. Cairncross L,
      3. Naiker T, et al
      . From symptom discovery to treatment - women's pathways to breast cancer care: a cross-sectional study. BMC Cancer 2018;18:312. doi:10.1186/s12885-018-4219-7pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29562894
      OpenUrlPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Wells KJ,
      2. Battaglia TA,
      3. Dudley DJ, et al
      . Patient navigation: state of the art or is it science? Cancer 2008;113:1999–2010.doi:10.1002/cncr.23815pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18780320
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      1. Valaitis RK,
      2. Carter N,
      3. Lam A, et al
      . Implementation and maintenance of patient navigation programs linking primary care with community-based health and social services: a scoping literature review. BMC Health Serv Res 2017;17:116. doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2046-1pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28166776
      OpenUrlPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Brand NR,
      2. Qu LG,
      3. Chao A, et al
      . Delays and barriers to cancer care in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Oncologist 2019;24:e1371–80.doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0057pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31387949
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    11. ↵
      1. Qu LG,
      2. Brand NR,
      3. Chao A, et al
      . Interventions addressing barriers to delayed cancer diagnosis in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Oncologist 2020;25:e1382–95.doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0804pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32125732
      OpenUrlPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Jedy-Agba E,
      2. McCormack V,
      3. Adebamowo C, et al
      . Stage at diagnosis of breast cancer in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2016;4:e923–35.doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30259-5pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27855871
      OpenUrlPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Tegegne TK,
      2. Chojenta C,
      3. Loxton D, et al
      . The impact of geographic access on institutional delivery care use in low and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2018;13:e0203130. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203130pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30161201
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Cazap E,
      2. Magrath I,
      3. Kingham TP, et al
      . Structural barriers to diagnosis and treatment of cancer in low- and middle-income countries: the urgent need for scaling up. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:14–19.doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.61.9189pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26578618
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    15. ↵
      1. Scott SE,
      2. Walter FM,
      3. Webster A, et al
      . The model of pathways to treatment: conceptualization and integration with existing theory. Br J Health Psychol 2013;18:45–65.doi:10.1111/j.2044-8287.2012.02077.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22536840
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    16. ↵
      1. Grosse Frie K,
      2. Samoura H,
      3. Diop S, et al
      . Why do women with breast cancer get diagnosed and treated late in sub-Saharan Africa? perspectives from women and patients in Bamako, Mali. Breast Care 2018;13:39–43.doi:10.1159/000481087pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29950966
      OpenUrlPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Grosse Frie K,
      2. Kamaté B,
      3. Traoré CB, et al
      . Factors associated with time to first healthcare visit, diagnosis and treatment, and their impact on survival among breast cancer patients in Mali. PLoS One 2018;13:e0207928. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0207928pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30496219
      OpenUrlPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Poum A,
      2. Promthet S,
      3. Duffy SW, et al
      . Factors associated with delayed diagnosis of breast cancer in northeast Thailand. J Epidemiol 2014;24:102–8.doi:10.2188/jea.JE20130090pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24335087
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Moodley J,
      2. Cairncross L,
      3. Naiker T, et al
      . Understanding pathways to breast cancer diagnosis among women in the Western Cape Province, South Africa: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2016;6:e009905. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009905pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26729392
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      1. Unger-Saldaña K,
      2. Peláez-Ballestas I,
      3. Infante-Castañeda C
      . Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess delay in treatment for breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2012;12:626. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-12-626pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23272645
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Neal RD,
      2. Nafees S,
      3. Pasterfield D, et al
      . Patient-Reported measurement of time to diagnosis in cancer: development of the cancer symptom interval measure (C-SIM) and randomised controlled trial of method of delivery. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:3. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-3pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24387663
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Walter F,
      2. Webster A,
      3. Scott S, et al
      . The Andersen model of total patient delay: a systematic review of its application in cancer diagnosis. J Health Serv Res Policy 2012;17:110–8.doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2011.010113pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22008712
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Weller D,
      2. Vedsted P,
      3. Rubin G, et al
      . The Aarhus statement: improving design and reporting of studies on early cancer diagnosis. Br J Cancer 2012;106:1262–7.doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.68pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22415239
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Battaglia TA,
      2. Roloff K,
      3. Posner MA, et al
      . Improving follow-up to abnormal breast cancer screening in an urban population. A patient navigation intervention. Cancer 2007;109:359–67.doi:10.1002/cncr.22354pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17123275
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Drake BF,
      2. Tannan S,
      3. Anwuri VV, et al
      . A community-based partnership to successfully implement and maintain a breast health navigation program. J Community Health 2015;40:1216–23.doi:10.1007/s10900-015-0051-zpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26077018
      OpenUrlPubMed
    26. ↵
      1. Neal RD,
      2. Tharmanathan P,
      3. France B, et al
      . Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? systematic review. Br J Cancer 2015;112 Suppl 1:S92–107.doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.48pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25734382
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. World Health Organization (WHO)
      . Guide to cancer early diagnosis. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2017. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/254500/1/9789241511940‐eng.pdf?ua=1
    28. ↵
      1. World Health Organization (WHO)
      . WHO report on cancer: setting priorities, investing wisely and providing care for all. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2020.
    29. ↵
      1. Arksey H,
      2. O'Malley L
      . Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19–32.doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    30. ↵
      1. Levac D,
      2. Colquhoun H,
      3. O'Brien KK
      . Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010;5:69.doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20854677
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Tricco AC,
      2. Lillie E,
      3. Zarin W, et al
      . PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73.doi:10.7326/M18-0850pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30178033
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Nnaji CA,
      2. Kuodi P,
      3. Walter FM, et al
      . Timeliness of diagnosis of breast and cervical cancers and associated factors in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open 2021;11:e044093. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044093pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33958339
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      1. McGowan J,
      2. Sampson M,
      3. Salzwedel DM, et al
      . PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;75:40–6.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27005575
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. ↵
      DocTranslator web site. Available: https://www.onlinedoctranslator.com/ [Accessed 14 Mar 2021].
    35. ↵
      1. Peters MDJ,
      2. Godfrey CM,
      3. Khalil H, et al
      . Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015;13:141–6.doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26134548
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    36. ↵
      1. Fantom N,
      2. Serajuddin U
      . The World Bank’s Classification of Countries by Income (English). Policy Research Working Paper no. WPS 7528. Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2016.
    37. ↵
      1. Carlos LL-J,
      2. LAPd C,
      3. Leopoldo VC
      . Effectiveness of traditional Chinese acupuncture versus sham acupuncture: a systematic review. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2016;24:e2762-e.
    38. ↵
      1. Begoihn M,
      2. Mathewos A,
      3. Aynalem A, et al
      . Cervical cancer in Ethiopia - predictors of advanced stage and prolonged time to diagnosis. Infect Agent Cancer 2019;14:36. doi:10.1186/s13027-019-0255-4pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31737087
      OpenUrlPubMed
    39. ↵
      1. Dianatinasab M,
      2. Fararouei M,
      3. Mohammadianpanah M, et al
      . Impact of social and clinical factors on diagnostic delay of breast cancer: a cross-sectional study. Medicine 2016;95:e4704. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000004704pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27661018
      OpenUrlPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Ermiah E,
      2. Abdalla F,
      3. Buhmeida A, et al
      . Diagnosis delay in Libyan female breast cancer. BMC Res Notes 2012;5:452. doi:10.1186/1756-0500-5-452pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22909280
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. Foerster M,
      2. McKenzie F,
      3. Zietsman A, et al
      . Dissecting the journey to breast cancer diagnosis in sub-Saharan Africa: findings from the multicountry ABC-DO cohort study. Int J Cancer 2021;148:340–51.doi:10.1002/ijc.33209pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32663320
      OpenUrlPubMed
    42. ↵
      1. Gebremariam A,
      2. Addissie A,
      3. Worku A, et al
      . Time intervals experienced between first symptom recognition and pathologic diagnosis of breast cancer in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2019;9:e032228. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032228pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31719089
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    43. ↵
      1. Grosse Frie K,
      2. Kamaté B,
      3. Traoré CB, et al
      . Health system organisation and patient pathways: breast care patients' trajectories and medical doctors' practice in Mali. BMC Public Health 2019;19:204. doi:10.1186/s12889-019-6532-8pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30777038
      OpenUrlPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. Gyenwali D,
      2. Khanal G,
      3. Paudel R, et al
      . Estimates of delays in diagnosis of cervical cancer in Nepal. BMC Womens Health 2014;14:29. doi:10.1186/1472-6874-14-29pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24533670
      OpenUrlPubMed
    45. ↵
      1. Jassem J,
      2. Ozmen V,
      3. Bacanu F, et al
      . Delays in diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer: a multinational analysis. Eur J Public Health 2014;24:761–7.doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckt131pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24029456
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    46. ↵
      1. Hameed Khaliq I,
      2. Mahmood HZ,
      3. Sarfraz MD, et al
      . Pathways to care for patients in Pakistan experiencing signs or symptoms of breast cancer. Breast 2019;46:40–7.doi:10.1016/j.breast.2019.04.005pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31075671
      OpenUrlPubMed
    47. ↵
      1. Martínez-Pérez DC,
      2. Gómez-Wolff LR,
      3. Ossa-Gómez CA, et al
      . [Association between delayed diagnosis and breast cancer in advanced clinical stage at the time of consultation in four oncology centers in Medellin- Colombia, 2017. Cross-sectional study]. Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol 2020;71:87–102.doi:10.18597/rcog.3410pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32770869
      OpenUrlPubMed
    48. ↵
      1. Norsa'adah B,
      2. Rampal KG,
      3. Rahmah MA, et al
      . Diagnosis delay of breast cancer and its associated factors in Malaysian women. BMC Cancer 2011;11:141. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-11-141pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21496310
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    49. ↵
      1. Olarewaju SO,
      2. Oyekunle EO,
      3. Bamiro AO
      . Effect of sociodemographic variables on patient and diagnostic delay of breast cancer at the Foremost health care institution in Nigeria. J Glob Oncol 2019;5:1–8.doi:10.1200/JGO.19.00108pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31348736
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    50. ↵
      1. Pace LE,
      2. Mpunga T,
      3. Hategekimana V, et al
      . Delays in breast cancer presentation and diagnosis at two rural cancer referral centers in Rwanda. Oncologist 2015;20:780–8.doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0493pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26032138
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    51. ↵
      1. Romanoff A,
      2. Constant TH,
      3. Johnson KM, et al
      . Association of previous clinical breast examination with reduced delays and Earlier-Stage breast cancer diagnosis among women in Peru. JAMA Oncol 2017;3:1563–7.doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1023pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28542677
      OpenUrlPubMed
    52. ↵
      1. Unger-Saldaña K,
      2. Ventosa-Santaulària D,
      3. Miranda A, et al
      . Barriers and explanatory mechanisms of delays in the patient and diagnosis intervals of care for breast cancer in Mexico. Oncologist 2018;23:440–53.doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0431pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29284758
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    53. ↵
      1. Shreyamsa M,
      2. Singh D,
      3. Ramakant P, et al
      . Barriers to timely diagnosis and management of breast cancer: observations from a tertiary referral center in resource poor setting. Indian J Surg Oncol 2020;11:287–93.doi:10.1007/s13193-020-01037-2pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32523277
      OpenUrlPubMed
    54. ↵
      1. Mohd Mujar NM,
      2. Dahlui M,
      3. Emran NA, et al
      . Complementary and alternative medicine (cam) use and delays in presentation and diagnosis of breast cancer patients in public hospitals in Malaysia. PLoS One 2017;12:e0176394. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176394pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28448541
      OpenUrlPubMed
    55. ↵
      1. Agodirin O,
      2. Olatoke S,
      3. Rahman G, et al
      . Presentation intervals and the impact of delay on breast cancer progression in a black African population. BMC Public Health 2020;20:962. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09074-wpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32560711
      OpenUrlPubMed
    56. ↵
      1. Dye TD,
      2. Bogale S,
      3. Hobden C, et al
      . Experience of initial symptoms of breast cancer and triggers for action in Ethiopia. Int J Breast Cancer 2012;2012:1–5.doi:10.1155/2012/908547pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22315692
      OpenUrlPubMed
    57. ↵
      1. Khokher S,
      2. Qureshi MU,
      3. Mahmood S, et al
      . Determinants of advanced stage at initial diagnosis of breast cancer in Pakistan: adverse tumor biology vs delay in diagnosis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2016;17:759–65.doi:10.7314/APJCP.2016.17.2.759pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26925676
      OpenUrlPubMed
    58. ↵
      1. Salih AM,
      2. Alfaki MM,
      3. Alam-Elhuda DM, et al
      . Factors delaying presentation of Sudanese breast cancer patients: an analysis using Andersen's model. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2016;17:2105–10.doi:10.7314/APJCP.2016.17.4.2105pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27221903
      OpenUrlPubMed
    59. ↵
      1. Shamsi U,
      2. Khan S,
      3. Azam I, et al
      . Patient delay in breast cancer diagnosis in two hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan: preventive and Life-Saving measures needed. JCO Glob Oncol 2020;6:873–83.doi:10.1200/GO.20.00034pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32579484
      OpenUrlPubMed
    60. ↵
      1. Sharma K,
      2. Costas A,
      3. Damuse R, et al
      . The Haiti breast cancer initiative: initial findings and analysis of Barriers-to-Care delaying patient presentation. J Oncol 2013;2013:1–6.doi:10.1155/2013/206367pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23840209
      OpenUrlPubMed
    61. ↵
      1. Gbenonsi G,
      2. Boucham M,
      3. Belrhiti Z, et al
      . Health system factors that influence diagnostic and treatment intervals in women with breast cancer in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2021;21:1325. doi:10.1186/s12889-021-11296-5pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34229634
      OpenUrlPubMed
    62. ↵
      1. European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR)
      . Recommendations for coding incidence date, 1997. Available: https://www.encr.eu/sites/default/files/pdf/incideng.pdf [Accessed 27 Aug 2021].

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @ChuxNesta_Nnaji

    • Contributors JM conceived the study, provided conceptual guidance for the design of the protocol and is the guarantor of the review. CAN wrote the first draft of the manuscript. PK, FMW and JM supported the refinement of the study protocol. CAN and PK performed literature search and study selection. CAN and EE conducted full text review, data extraction and analysis. JM and FMW provided critical insights and guided the coherence of the manuscript. All authors have contributed to, and approved, the final version of the manuscript.

    • Funding This research was jointly supported by the Cancer Association of South Africa (CANSA), the University of Cape Town and, the SA Medical Research Council with funds received from the SA National Department of Health, GlaxoSmithKline Africa Non-Communicable Disease Open Lab (via a supporting grant Project Number: 023) and the UK Medical Research Council (via the Newton Fund). Authors retained control of the final content of the publication. FW is the Director of the multi-institutional CanTest Collaborative, which is funded by Cancer Research UK (C8640/A23385).

    • Map disclaimer The depiction of boundaries on the map(s) in this article does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BMJ (or any member of its group) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, jurisdiction or area or of its authorities. The map(s) are provided without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.