Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39192892›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Olugbenga Farajimakin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  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

1 author.

Olugbenga FarajimakinClinical Research, Faraj-Lab Medical Diagnostics and Research Center, Lagos, NGA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cervical cancercultural factorshealthcare accesshealthcare disparitiesscreening and barriers

Identifiers

PMID39192892
PMCPMC11347962

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.