ReviewPublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2026
Who is left out? A systematic review on the barriers and facilitators for screening participation reported by people in vulnerable situations with strategies for the future.
Review in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This review aims to give a comprehensive overview of barriers and facilitators reported by people in vulnerable situations (PiVS) for screening participation. Furthermore, it investigates proposed strategies to increase screening participation, as reported in quantitative and qualitative empirical studies. Study design: Systematic review. Methods: The databases Embase, CINHAL, PsycINFO, Web of Science and PubMed including Medline were systematically searched for papers (from January 2013 to June 2023) on barriers and facilitators experienced by PiVS on participating in screening programmes on chronic diseases of high-income countries. The included papers were analysed thematically. Results: 96 papers were included. Results show barriers and facilitators mostly related to health literacy e.g. lack of resources, feelings of anxiety e.g. regarding test outcomes, and feelings of doubt e.g. regarding Western healthcare practices. Factors influencing screening participation can act both as barriers and facilitators. Studies suggested education, community-based interventions and support from healthcare providers as strategies to increase screening participation. The results show a focus on ethnic minorities as study populations. These populations reported mainly socio-cultural barriers and facilitators, such as religious beliefs. Consequently, there is limited representation of people in diverse vulnerable situations. Conclusions: This paper represents the voices of PiVS by showing barriers and facilitators reported by themselves. Currently, there is limited representation of diverse vulnerable groups and limited insight into how barriers and facilitators play out in people's daily lives. Therefore, we propose for future research to study the everyday-life to gain in-depth insight into the intersection of barriers and facilitators and how they influence decision-making. We propose for future screening developers to use participatory practices to build upon the experiences of diverse PiVS in order to develop and implement more inclusive screening programmes.
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.