ArticleBMC public health2024
Barriers and facilitators to cervical cancer screening among under- and neverscreened women in Flanders, Belgium - a qualitative study on community and healthcare providers' perspectives.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reciprocal innovation to improve access to primary healthcare in Belgium: adaptation and development of a community health worker intervention.BMC health services research · 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
- A Population Survey on Barriers and Facilitators to Breast Cancer Screening Based on the Theoretical Domains Framework.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is detectable and preventable in premalignant stages. In 2013, a population-based cervical cancer screening (CCS) programme was set up in Flanders (Belgium) promoting screening by means of sending reminder letters. Yet, in 2021, only a CCS coverage of 63.6% has been reached, which is just a bare increase since the implementation of the programme (62.7% in 2013) (Jaarrapport 2022, Centrum voor Kankeropsporing (CvKO), 2022; Jaarrapport 2015, Centrum voor Kankeropsporing (CvKO), 2015).
objectivesTo explore the characteristics of under- and neverscreened women in Flanders and to gain a better understanding of the barriers that prevent these women from attending CCS as well as factors that may facilitate CCS uptake.
methodsTwelve in-depth interviews and six focus group discussions were conducted with gynaecologists, general practitioners, community health workers and stakeholders providing support to women belonging to potentially underscreened population groups. Reported barriers and facilitators were subsequently classified using the Socio-Ecological Model (SEM). Finally, a causal loop diagram was constructed to visualise the dynamic interrelations among the barriers and facilitators.
resultsStakeholders and healthcare professionals confirm the vulnerability for cervical cancer screening in women with a substance use disorder and women with a migration background. The participation in screening among female sex workers is contingent upon their specific work environment. The group of never- or underscreened women is very heterogeneous and includes many women who are either unaware of CCS or have other priorities. A lack of focus on prevention is the most commonly reported barrier at the healthcare system level. Increasing awareness about cervical cancer (screening) and creating more opportunities for healthcare workers to offer prevention services are the primary facilitators.
conclusionTo improve screening participation in Flanders, different screening strategies tailored to a diversity of women are needed.
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.