SynthesisBMC public health2026
Barriers and facilitators of cervical cancer screening among female healthcare professionals: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer remains as one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths among women, due to the significant disparities with regard to the implementation of cervical cancer screening programs between the high and low—and middle-income countries. Studies have shown that cervical cancer screening uptake among female healthcare professionals (HCPs) has also been remarkably low. This systematic review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators that affect the uptake of cervical cancer screening among female HCPs.
methodIn this systematic review, we selected a total of 456 articles that were listed in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and these articles were published from 2012 to 2025. The inclusion criteria were full-text English articles which discussed barriers and facilitators of cervical cancer screening among HCPs. We also used the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for quality assessment. Information from these articles was analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach, generating key factors based on the findings from these articles.
resultsA total of 18 studies involving 7623 participants met the inclusion criteria. Findings showed that barriers to screening behavior among female HCPs was influenced by individual factors such as anticipated pain and discomfort, shame, fear of results, overall perception of being at low risk due to absence of symptoms, lack of time, low awareness, as well as cultural factors such as differing health beliefs and misconceptions. Other barriers encompass environmental factors such as low support, examiner-related barriers, inadequate facilities, and financial constraints. Conversely, factors that facilitated cervical cancer screening uptake among HCPs were individual factors such as older age group, being married, having multiple children, longer years of practice as HCPs, a family history of cancer, better knowledge of cervical cancer, as well as positive attitudes and beliefs about cervical cancer screening. In addition, institutional support and policies also enhanced the uptake of cervical cancer screening among HCPs.
conclusionTo address these barriers and strengthen facilitators of cervical cancer screening, multifaceted strategies are required, including tailored interventions and strategy development, in order to improve cervical cancer screening uptake among female HCPs. Increasing participation in cervical cancer screening among healthcare professional is important, as HCPs can serve as role models and may increase uptake of cervical cancer screening practices within the wider community. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023454213.
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.