Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36525529›Full record

SynthesisHealth policy and planning2023

Barriers to cervical cancer and breast cancer screening uptake in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Ananth Srinath, Frits van Merode, Shyam Vasudeva Rao, Milena Pavlova

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health policy and planning, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prevalence of Breast Cancer Screening in Asia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Breast Cancer Knowledge and Screening Barriers Among Female University Students of Pakistan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Ananth SrinathDepartment of Community Oncology, Sri Shankara National Centre for Cancer Prevention and Research, 1st Cross, Shankara Math Campus, Shankarapuram, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560004, India.ORCID 0000-0002-6186-2910
Frits van MerodeDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, Maastricht, MD 6200, The Netherlands.
Shyam Vasudeva RaoFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht University, P. Debyelaan 25, Maastricht, HX 6229, The Netherlands.
Milena PavlovaDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, Maastricht, MD 6200, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6082-8446

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an alarmingly high growth in breast and cervical cancers in low- and middle-income countries. Due to late presentation to doctors, there is a lower cure rate. The screening programmes in low- and middle-income countries are not comprehensive. In this paper, we systematically analyse the barriers to screening through an accessibility framework. We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Mendeley and Google Scholar to retrieve all English language studies (quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods) that contained information on breast and cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries. We only considered publications published between 1 January 2016 and 31 May 2021. The review was guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S), an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. The search yielded a total of 67 articles from low- and middle-income countries in this review. We used a framework on accessibility known as the 5A framework, which distinguishes five aspects of access: approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability and appropriateness, to classify the screening barriers. We added two more aspects: awareness and angst, as they could explain other important barriers to screening. They confirmed how the lack of awareness, cost of the screening service and distance to the screening centre act as major impediments to screening. They also revealed how embarrassment and fear of screening and cultural factors such as lack of spousal or family support could be obstacles to screening. We conclude that more needs to be done by policymakers and governments to improve the confidence of the people in the health systems. Women should be made aware of the causes and risk factors of cancer through evidence-based strategies so that there is an increased adherence to screening.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCosts and Cost AnalysisDeveloping CountriesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansaccessibilitybarriers to breast and cervical screeninglow- and middle-income countriesSystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID36525529
PMCPMC10089064

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.