ArticleBMC primary care2026
Barriers and facilitators in access to cervical cancer secondary prevention in Cochabamba, Bolivia: a qualitative study of healthcare providers' perceptions.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
backgroundDespite the availability of cervical cancer (CC) screening in Bolivia, coverage remains low and uneven across municipalities. This suggests the presence of barriers to effective secondary prevention, which involves early detection through screening and treatment of precancerous lesions. There is limited research on the perceptions of healthcare providers (HCPs) regarding the challenges that women in Bolivia face when accessing CC secondary prevention. This study therefore explored HCPs' perceptions of barriers and facilitators for women's access to CC secondary prevention in Cochabamba, Bolivia.
methodsQualitative interviews were conducted with 30 HCPs working in CC secondary prevention, including gynaecologists, general practitioners, nurses, and auxiliary nurses. The interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Levesque's access to healthcare framework informed the study design, and the socio-ecological model was used to discuss the findings across multiple levels.
resultsHCPs perceived numerous barriers and limited facilitators in access to CC secondary prevention at different levels. Barriers at the individual level included information gaps among women. Incentive-based campaigns were used to increase screening, but these did not address the actual treatment barriers or root causes. At the interpersonal-community level, barriers included family-transferred misconceptions, gender norms, and women's fear of intimate partner violence if attending screening. Facilitators included the use of the Quechua language during healthcare encounters, and material incentives to encourage attendance. Barriers at the organizational-structural level included a lack of clarity regarding which women should be screened and how often, the concentration of centralized cytology services in a single laboratory, unclear responsibilities among staff for sample collection and result delivery, and bureaucratic and administrative barriers that limited access to screening and timely results. These barriers led to long waiting times, generating mistrust and reluctance to engage with CC screening.
conclusionsHCPs perceive barriers to CC secondary prevention at the individual, community, and organizational levels, including women's lack of information, family-driven misconceptions, gender norms, unclear screening guidelines, centralized cytology services, and bureaucratic delays that erode trust. Facilitators include the use of Quechua language during care and material incentives to encourage screening attendance; however, these do not address treatment barriers or structural causes.
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.