Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41779093›Full record

ReviewJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026

Evidence-based Interventions for Cancer Screening Access among People with Physical and/or Sensory Disability: a Systematic Review of the Evidence.

Sandra Sursock, Zephaniah Hilton, Mark Jenkins, Carlene Wilson, Nancy N Baxter, Driss Ait Ouakrim, Zoe Aitken, Kate Broun, Kathryn Robb, Jennifer G McIntosh

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Sandra SursockMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. s.sursock@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-1430-5899
Zephaniah HiltonMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Mark JenkinsMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Carlene WilsonMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Nancy N BaxterFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Driss Ait OuakrimMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Zoe AitkenMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Kate BrounCancer Council Victoria, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Kathryn RobbSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Jennifer G McIntoshMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People with physical and/or sensory disability have lower uptake of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening than those without disability. This systematic review aims to identify evidence-based interventions designed to positively influence cancer screening participation for people with physical and/or sensory disability. Databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies reporting interventions targeting breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer screening for people with physical and/or sensory disability. A qualitative review of the results formed a narrative synthesis. Fifteen studies published between 1995–2022 from the USA, Turkey and Saudi Arabia were included in the review, involving people who were d/Deaf (n = 10), people with physical disability (n = 4), and people with cognitive, hearing, vision or physical disability (n = 1). The interventions included cancer and cancer screening education (n = 13) and environmental interventions that modified healthcare facilities (n = 2). Most educational interventions increased cancer screening knowledge but only some increased screening participation. The environmental interventions showed promising but non-significant effects on screening participation. Despite critical gaps in the literature, this review provides a foundation to develop interventions needed to improve cancer screening participation among people with physical and/or sensory disability.

Indexed as

AccessibilityCancer screeningInterventionPhysical disabilitySensory disability

Identifiers

PMID41779093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.