SynthesisJournal of medical screening2020
Determinants of (non-)attendance at the Dutch cancer screening programmes: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of medical screening, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Barriers to cancer screening uptake and approaches to overcome them: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Factors influencing breast cancer screening practices among women worldwide: a systematic review of observational and qualitative studies.BMC women's health · 2024Pooled it
- Factors promoting breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings participation: A systematic review.Psycho-oncology · 2022Pooled it
- The effect of a pre-scheduled appointment on attendance in a population-based mammography screening programme.European journal of public health · 2023Trial
- Using Nudges to Reduce Missed Appointments in Primary Care and Mental Health: a Pragmatic Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Trial
- Optimizing invitation letters for national cancer screening programs: Qualitative usability testing.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Association Between Socioeconomic Position and Diagnosis, Treatment and Survival of Patients With Stage I-III Rectal Cancer in the Netherlands.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- SARS-CoV-2 testing uptake and its determinants in six ethnic groups living in Amsterdam, the Netherlands: a registry-based study within the HELIUS cohort.European journal of public health · 2026Article
- A guide to cancer screening.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Cause-specific mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: Associations with screening and socio-economic status.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Perspective of pregnant women on feasibility of integrating cervical cancer screening into antenatal care in the Netherlands: a questionnaire study.European journal of public health · 2025Article
- Determinants of cancer screening participation in Türkiye: a nationwide study of demographic, socioeconomic, and lifestyle factors.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Nonadherence to Diabetes Complications Screening in a Multiethnic Asian Population: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Prospective Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Unpleasant but effective: Newspaper coverage of cancer screening and cancer in the Netherlands from 2010 to 2022.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Experiences and Perceptions of Cervical Cancer Screening Using Self-Sampling among Under-Screened Women in Flanders.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Perspective of obstetric care-providers on being involved in cervical cancer screening during antenatal care in the Netherlands.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Perceptions and beliefs of general practitioners on their role in the cancer screening programmes in the Netherlands: a mixed-methods study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Exploring Gender Disparities in Factors Influencing Colorectal Cancer Screening Compliance in Singapore.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Netherlands host three population-based cancer screening programmes: for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer. For screening programmes to be effective, high participation rates are essential, but participation in the Netherlands' programmes is starting to fall below the minimal effective rate. We aimed to produce a systematic overview of the current known determinants of (non-)attendance at the Dutch cancer screening programmes.
methodsA literature search was conducted in the electronic databases Academic Search Premier, Cochrane Library, Embase, EMCare, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and also in grey literature, including all articles published before February 2018. The I-Change model was used to categorize the identified determinants of cancer screening attendance.
resultsIn total, 19/1232 identified studies and 6 grey literature reports were included. Fifteen studies reported on predisposing factors. Characteristics such as social economic status, country of birth, and residency were most often reported, and correlate with cancer screening attendance. Thirteen studies addressed information factors. Factors on awareness, motivation, ability, and barriers were less often studied.
conclusionCurrent studies tend to describe the general characteristics of (non-)attendance and (non-)attenders, but rarely provide in depth information on other factors of (non-)participation. The I-Change model proved to be a useful tool in mapping current knowledge on cancer screening attendance and revealed knowledge gaps regarding determinants of (non-)participation in the screening programmes. More research is needed to fully understand determinants of participation, in order to influence and optimize attendance rates over the long term.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.