Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33757512›Full record

SynthesisBMC women's health2021

Barriers and facilitators for cervical cancer screening among adolescents and young people: a systematic review.

Abirami Kirubarajan, Shannon Leung, Xinglin Li, Matthew Yau, Mara Sobel

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Abirami KirubarajanFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 1 Kings College Circle, Medical Science Building, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada. abi.kirubarajan@mail.utoronto.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-9807-5024
Shannon LeungFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 1 Kings College Circle, Medical Science Building, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada.
Xinglin LiFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 1 Kings College Circle, Medical Science Building, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada.
Matthew YauFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 1 Kings College Circle, Medical Science Building, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada.
Mara SobelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.
University of Toronto · CASinai Health System · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThough cervical cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death globally, its incidence is nearly entirely preventable. Young people have been an international priority for screening as this population has historically been under-screened. However, in both high-income and low-income countries, young people have not been screened appropriately according to country-specific guidelines. The aim of this systematic review was to systematically characterize the existing literature on barriers and facilitators for cervical cancer screening (CCS) among adolescents and young people globally.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines of three key databases: Medline-OVID, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Supplementary searches were done through ClinicialTrials.Gov and Scopus. Databases were examined from 1946 until the date of our literature searches on March 12th 2020. We only examined original, peer-reviewed literature. Articles were excluded if they did not specifically discuss CCS, were not specific to individuals under the age of 35, or did not report outcomes or evaluation. All screening, extraction, and synthesis was completed in duplicate with two independent reviewers. Outcomes were summarized descriptively. Risk of bias for individual studies was graded using an adapted rating scale based on the Risk of Bias Instrument for Cross-Sectional Surveys of Attitudes and Practices.

resultsOf the 2177 original database citations, we included 36 studies that met inclusion criteria. The 36 studies included a total of 14,362 participants, and around half (17/36, 47.2%) of studies specifically targeted students. The majority of studies (31/36, 86.1%) discussed barriers and facilitators to Pap testing specifically, while one study analyzed self-sampling (1/36, 2.8%), one study targeted HPV DNA testing (1/36, 2.8%), and the remainder (4/36, 11.1%) were not specified. Our systematic review found that there are three large categories of barriers for young people: lack of knowledge/awareness, negative perceptions of the test, and systemic barriers to testing. Facilitators included stronger relationships with healthcare providers, social norms, support from family, and self-efficacy.

conclusionThere are unique barriers and facilitators that affect CCS rates in adolescents and young people. Health systems and healthcare providers worldwide should address the challenges for this unique population.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdolescentCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMass ScreeningAdolescentCervical cancerHPVPap smearpap testScreeningTeenagerYoung peopleYouth

Identifiers

PMID33757512
PMCPMC7989022
OpenAlexW3138308112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.