Main Organiser

Julius Centre University of Malaya


Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malay

Supported by

University of Malaya



Shanthi Varatharajan 1 , Majdah M 2 , Mukarramah A 3 , Chee Meng Yong 4 , Won Sun Chen 5 , Faridah AB 3 , Syed Al-Junid 6, 7


1 Clinical Research Centre, Ministry of Health Malaysia
2 Family Health Development Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia
3 Pathology Department, Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II, Kota Bharu, Ministry of Health Malaysia
4 Gynaecology Department, Hospital Ampang, Ministry of Health Malaysia
5 Research & Innovation Management Centre, SEGI University College
6 Department of Community Faculty of Medicine UKM
7 United Nations University- International Institute of Global Health


Introduction: Systematic review with a constructive analytical framework can provide strong evidence to support decision making policymakers in choosing the best recommendations for cervical cancer screening program.

Objectives: This paper outlines the methodology in constructing and translating evidences as recommendations for policymakers to strengthen the cervical cancer screening programme in Malaysia.

Methods: Analytical framework was structured after 8-hours of brainstorming session with a multi- discipline team of gynecologists, pathologists, public health physicians and researchers with vast experience in cervical cancer. Selected articles were sent to eligible experts from the different relevant disciplines nationwide for further approval after the multi-discipline team has graded the articles according to the recommendations from the Cochrane Group.

Results: Interventions selected for the review were on HPV vaccination, Pap smear screening and pathology examination. Expected outcomes are to increase detection of pre-invasive lesions of cancer of cervix, reduce incidence of invasive lesions of cervical cancer and reduce morbidity and mortality of cervical cancer. The recommendations are expected to be compiled and presented to policymakers.

Conclusion: The construction of the framework was important to obtain relevant evidence with minimal resources. Although the study was challenging, working with multi-discipline team members reduced the communication gap.