Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37304105›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Factors influencing the participation of groups identified as underserved in cervical cancer screening in Europe: a scoping review of the literature.

Rachel Greenley, Sadie Bell, Samuel Rigby, Rosa Legood, Victoria Kirkby, Martin McKee, CBIG-SCREEN Consortium

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachel GreenleyCentre for Global Mental Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Sadie BellDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Samuel RigbyDepartment of Health Services, Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Rosa LegoodCentre for Global Chronic Conditions, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Victoria KirkbyDepartment of Health Services, Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Martin McKeeDepartment of Health Services, Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
CBIG-SCREEN Consortium
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cervical cancer is a preventable and inequitably distributed disease. Screening plays a vital role in prevention, but many women face barriers to participation. The aims of this scoping review, undertaken to inform the co-design of interventions to equitably increase screening uptake, were to: (1) identify barriers and facilitators to cervical cancer screening for underserved populations, and (2) identify and describe the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving participation in cervical cancer screening among underserved groups in Europe. Methods: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies focusing on barriers and facilitators to cervical screening participation and interventions to improve uptake undertaken in Europe and published after 2000 were included. Four electronic databases were searched to identify relevant papers. Titles and abstracts were screened, full text reviewed, and key findings extracted. Data were extracted and analyzed according to different health system strata: system-wide (macro), service specific (meso) and individual/community specific (micro). Within these categories, themes were identified, and the population groups impacted were recorded. All findings are presented in accordance with (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: 33 studies on barriers and facilitators and eight intervention studies met the inclusion criteria. Collectively, the findings of these studies presented a wide array of screening uptake barriers, facilitators, and interventions, predominantly related to screening service and individual/community factors. However, although diverse, certain core themes around information provision, prompts for participation and the need for inclusive spaces were apparent. Implementation of screening programs should focus on: (1) reducing identifiable barriers, (2) increasing public awareness, and (3) providing patient reminders and measures to promote engagement by healthcare providers. Conclusion: There are many barriers to uptake of cervical cancer screening and this review, nested within a larger study, will inform work to devise a solution alongside groups identified in three European countries.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerUterine Cervical NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualEuropeFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansbarrierscervical cancer screeningEuropefacilitatorsvulnerable and underserved populations

Identifiers

PMID37304105
PMCPMC10247980
OpenAlexW4378232548

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.