Eliciting women's cervical screening preferences: a mixed methods systematic review protocol
- PMID: 27516072
- PMCID: PMC4982264
- DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0310-9
Eliciting women's cervical screening preferences: a mixed methods systematic review protocol
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.
Similar articles
-
Development and field testing of a tool to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities.J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Dec;25(6):1169-1181. doi: 10.1111/jep.13258. Epub 2019 Aug 18. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019. PMID: 31423705
-
Women's preferences and experiences of cervical cancer screening in rural and remote areas: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.Rural Remote Health. 2019 Oct;19(4):5190. doi: 10.22605/RRH5190. Epub 2019 Oct 23. Rural Remote Health. 2019. PMID: 31640391
-
Women's autonomy and cervical cancer screening in the Lesotho Demographic and Health Survey 2009.Soc Sci Med. 2016 Feb;150:23-30. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.12.009. Epub 2015 Dec 10. Soc Sci Med. 2016. PMID: 26722985
-
Screening for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer: protocol for systematic reviews to inform Canadian recommendations.Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 2;10(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01538-9. Syst Rev. 2021. PMID: 33388083 Free PMC article.
-
Sociocultural factors influencing women's adherence to colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening: a systematic review.BMC Public Health. 2025 Jun 2;25(1):2034. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-23118-z. BMC Public Health. 2025. PMID: 40457244 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Sense about science, making sense of screening: a guide to weighing up the benefits and harms of health screening programmes, London, 2015.
-
- World Health Organization . Early detection (module 3 of 6) 2007. p. 50.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials