Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Aug 11;5(1):136.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0310-9.

Eliciting women's cervical screening preferences: a mixed methods systematic review protocol

Affiliations

Eliciting women's cervical screening preferences: a mixed methods systematic review protocol

Brianne Wood et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: With the accumulation of evidence regarding potential harms of cancer screening in recent years, researchers, policy-makers, and the public are becoming more critical of population-based cancer screening. Consequently, a high-quality cancer screening program should consider individuals' values and preferences when determining recommendations. In cervical cancer screening, offering women autonomy is considered a "person-centered" approach to health care services; however, it may impact the effectiveness of the program should women choose to not participate. As part of a larger project to investigate women's cervical screening preferences and correlates of these preferences, this systematic review will capture quantitative and qualitative investigations of women's cervical screening preferences and the methods used to elicit them.

Design and methods: This mixed methods synthesis will use a thematic analysis approach to synthesize qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence. This protocol describes the methods that will be used in this investigation. A search strategy has been developed with a health librarian and peer reviewed using PRESS. Based on this strategy, five databases and the gray literature will be searched for studies that meet the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included individual studies will be examined using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Three reviewers will extract data from the primary studies on the tools or instruments used to elicit women's preferences regarding cervical cancer screening, theoretical frameworks used, outcomes measured, the outstanding themes from quantitative and qualitative evidence, and the identified preferences for cervical cancer screening. We will describe the relationships between study results and the study population, "intervention" (e.g., tool or instrument), and context. We will follow the PRISMA reporting guideline. We will compare findings across studies and between study methods (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative study designs). The strength of the synthesized findings will be assessed using the validated GRADE and CERQual tool.

Discussion: This review will inform the development of a tool to elicit women's cervical screening preferences. Understanding the methods used to elicit women's preferences and what is known about women's cervical screening preferences will be useful for guideline developers who wish to incorporate a woman-centered approach specifically for cervical screening guidelines.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42016035737.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

References

    1. Sense about science, making sense of screening: a guide to weighing up the benefits and harms of health screening programmes, London, 2015.
    1. World Health Organization . Early detection (module 3 of 6) 2007. p. 50.
    1. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ, Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA. 2004;291:71–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.1.71. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stefanek ME. Uninformed compliance or informed choice? A needed shift in our approach to cancer screening. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1821–6. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr474. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Woolf SH, Harris R. The harms of screening: new attention to an old concern. JAMA. 2012;307:565–6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.100. - DOI - PubMed