Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39132316›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2024

Cervical screening participation and access facilitators and barriers for people with intellectual disability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rosalie Power, Michael David, Iva Strnadová, Lauren Touyz, Caroline Basckin, Julie Loblinzk, Heather Jolly, Elizabeth Kennedy, Jane Ussher, Sally Sweeney and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

13 authors.

Rosalie PowerTranslational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Michael DavidThe Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Iva StrnadováFaculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, School of Education, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Lauren TouyzThe Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Caroline BasckinFaculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, School of Education, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Julie LoblinzkFaculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, School of Education, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Heather JollyFamily Planning Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Elizabeth KennedyThe Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jane UssherTranslational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sally SweeneyFamily Planning Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ee-Lin ChangFamily Planning Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Allison CarterSexual Health and Reproductive Equity Research Group, UNSW Kirby Institute, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Deborah BatesonThe Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

barrierscancer screeningcervical screeningearly detection of cancerfacilitatorsintellectual disability

Identifiers

PMID39132316
PMCPMC11310793

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.