ReviewInternational journal of women's health2024
Principles for Service Delivery: Best Practices for Cervical Screening for Women with Disabilities.
Review in International journal of women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptability of, and preference for, human papillomavirus self-sampling for physically Disabled women: A cross-sectional survey.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- '…but look how many lives would have been saved if this was available then' Exploring the acceptability of future Human Papillomavirus self-sampling, and the barriers and facilitators of cervical cancer screening for those with intellectual disabilities in Scotland.British journal of health psychology · 2026Article
- Cervical cancer screening in women with disabilities in Ghana: bridging the gap in access and equity.AJOG global reports · 2026Article
- Monitoring and evaluation of health disparities for people with disability in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Epidemiologic reviews · 2026Article
- Exploring Inclusion in Austria's Breast Cancer Screening:A Dual-Perspective Study of Women with Intellectual Disabilities and Their Caregivers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Inequalities in cancer mortality between people with and without disability: A nationwide data linkage study of 10 million adults in Australia.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Avoidable mortality for people with disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Left behind in primary healthcare: A qualitative exploration of healthcare experiences of people with disabilities in Ethiopia.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Adapting and pilot testing a tool to assess the accessibility of primary health facilities for people with disabilities in Luuka District, Uganda.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer screening is an important public health priority, yet many marginalized groups are not reached by existing programs. The nearly 700 million women with disabilities globally face substantial barriers in accessing cervical cancer screening and have lower coverage, yet there is limited evidence on what would support enhanced uptake among this population. Methods: We updated a systematic review to estimate the disparity in screening uptake for women with disabilities. We conducted a scoping review to understand key barriers and the inclusion of disability in existing screening policies and possible solutions to improve screening uptakes amongst women with disabilities. We then formulated key principles for improved service delivery for this group, targeted predominantly at clinicians. Results: Our updated review identified an additional five new studies, and confirmed that women with disabilities were less likely to be screened for cervical cancer (RR=0.65, 0.50-0.84). Disability-specific barriers to accessing screening pertained to: (1) knowledge and autonomy; (2) logistics; and (3) stigma and fear. Few guidelines included specific considerations for women with disabilities. Our scoping review showed that improving access to care must focus on improving (1) autonomy, awareness, and affordability; (2) human resources; and (3) health facility accessibility. Conclusion: Screening programmes and health providers must ensure women with disabilities are included in cervical cancer screening programmes and thereby help to achieve their right to health and eliminate cervical cancer as a public health issue.
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.