ReviewCureus2024
Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 5 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cervical cancer screening policy inequality worldwide: a systematic review of disparities in access and implementation.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Disparities Among Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Utilization of cervical cancer screening and its associated factors among women living with HIV in East Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC women's health · 2025Pooled it
- Accuracy of real-time PCR assays for human papillomavirus using urine samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Patient acceptance of HPV self-sampling approach for cervical cancer screening: evidence from a pilot study in Kazakhstan.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Integrating non-coding RNA profiling with HPV genotyping for cervical cancer risk stratification and early detection.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- Leveraging sexually transmitted infection clinics for cervical cancer screening: evidence from India.Public health action · 2026Article
- Insights of Vietnamese American Women on Cervical Cancer Screening and HPV Self-Sampling.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- A global scoping review of interventions to increase participation in screening programmes for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer between 2016 and 2025.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Women's experiences toward cervical cancer care at the initiation of care: a qualitative study closing the gap policy and implementation in Indonesia.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Physician-Level Determinants of Cervical Cancer Screening Practices: A Socio-Ecological Model-Based Study from Adjara, Georgia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Qualitative insights into the acceptability of self-collection for cervical screening amongst under- and never-screened groups in Australia.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Article
- HPV detection in first void urine and cervicovaginal samples: comparative study and analysis of associated factors in women from tunja, colombia.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Epidemiology and prevention of HPV-driven cervical cancer in urban-rural China: a population-based study of 60,280 women.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Understanding barriers and facilitators to cervical cancer prevention among young Korean Women: A focus group interview study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Factors associated with cervical cancer screening participation in Southwest China: a retrospective database-based cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical cancer remains a significant global health concern, particularly in underserved populations. Despite the availability of effective screening methods, uptake remains suboptimal in many regions. This systematic review aims to synthesize the current evidence on barriers to cervical cancer screening across diverse populations and healthcare settings. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant studies published till June 2024. Studies examining barriers to cervical cancer screening in various populations were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. A narrative synthesis approach was used to analyze and present the findings. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing a wide range of study designs and populations. Common barriers identified across studies included lack of knowledge and awareness, economic constraints, access issues, cultural and religious factors, fear and embarrassment, and distrust in healthcare systems. Population-specific barriers were observed among immigrant and ethnic minority women, individuals in low- and middle-income countries, indigenous women, and LGBQ women. Healthcare system factors, socioeconomic influences, psychological and individual factors, and interpersonal and community dynamics also played significant roles in screening participation. This review highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of barriers to cervical cancer screening. Findings suggest that interventions to improve screening rates should be comprehensive, culturally sensitive, and tailored to specific population needs. Addressing both individual-level and systemic barriers is crucial for enhancing cervical cancer screening uptake globally.
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.