ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2024
Cervical screening participation and access facilitators and barriers for people with intellectual disability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Risk of cervical cancer and high-grade lesions in vulnerable women a systematic review and meta-analysis.Nature communications · 2026Pooled it
- Cancer prevention and screening for people with intellectual disabilities in Europe: a systematic review and recommendations for policy and practice.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- A literature review of cancer diagnostic tests and treatments in adults with intellectual disability.HRB open research · 2025Pooled it
- Inequities in Preventive Care for Adults with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disability in the USA: A Narrative Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Review
- '…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
- Cancer screening in people with intellectual disability: a scoping review of participation, barriers, facilitators, and improvement strategies within the EUCanScreen initiative.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- 'Give People More Time and Take the Time to Explain Things Properly': Cervical Screening Experiences of People With Intellectual Disability.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2026Article
- Age-Specific Diagnostic Panorama Among People With Intellectual Disabilities in Comparison With the General Population: A Longitudinal Register Study (IDcare).Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 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
- Applicability of the levels of the socio-ecological model in the context of cervical cancer prevention: a scoping review.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Article
- Exploring Cancer Prevention Challenges for People with Intellectual Disabilities: Perspectives from Family Caregiver.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The World Health Organisation's vision of eliminating cervical cancer as a public health problem is achievable, but elimination must be achieved equitably, including for people with intellectual disability. A better understanding of cervical screening within the context of the lives of people with intellectual disability is needed. This study systematically reviewed research on the rates of cervical screening participation among people with intellectual disability, and facilitators and barriers that affect participation. Method: Six electronic databases were systematically searched: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase and Pro-Quest Central Social Sciences Collection. Empirical studies published between 1986 and 2023, in English language peer-reviewed journals were eligible for inclusion. Further articles were identified through forward and backward citation tracking, and hand-searching the index lists of two key journals. Two authors screened the studies, extracted the data and collated study outcomes using a standardised software program. A meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian and Laird method to estimate pooled effect sizes in prevalence rates and odds ratios (ORs). The socio-ecological model (SEM) was used as a framework to thematically analyse facilitators and barriers impacting participation in cervical screening. Results: Sixty-three articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 42 reported on rates of cervical screening participation and 24 reported on facilitators or barriers to cervical screening for people with intellectual disability. Overall, the studies reported a screening prevalence of 35% (95% CI: 26% to 45%), indicating that just over a third of people with intellectual disability have had cervical screening. The pooled odds ratio of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.23 to 0.41) indicated that people with intellectual disability are significantly less likely to have a cervical screening test compared with people without intellectual disability. Most studies examined individual and interpersonal factors impacting cervical screening. These included: (i) fear and anxiety among people with intellectual disability, (ii) misassumptions preventing screening participation, (iii) the role of support people, (iv) the need for education, (v) accessible information, and time to prepare for screening, (vi) patient-provider communication including challenges obtaining informed consent, and (vii) healthcare provider lack of confidence. Conclusion: Future research, policy and practice efforts must address barriers to cervical screening participation among people with intellectual disability and ensure these efforts are co-produced and community-led. This is critical to ensuring equity in global and local efforts to eliminate cervical cancer.
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.