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
. 2022 Oct;23(7):1115-1142.
doi: 10.1007/s11121-022-01388-y. Epub 2022 Jun 15.

Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Health Screening: an Umbrella Review Across Conditions

Affiliations

Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Health Screening: an Umbrella Review Across Conditions

Alice Le Bonniec et al. Prev Sci. 2022 Oct.

Abstract

Screening is an essential prevention practice for a number of health conditions. However, screening coverage remains generally low. Studies that investigate determinants of screening participation are becoming more common, but oftentimes investigate screening for health conditions in an individualized rather than integrated fashion. In routine clinical practice, however, healthcare professionals are often confronted with situations in which several screening procedures are recommended for the same patient. The consideration of their common determinants may support a more integrated screening approach. The objectives of this umbrella review were therefore to examine: 1) the determinants (barriers and facilitators) that have been identified in relation to recommended health screening procedures; and 2) the modifiable determinants (in primary care) common across health conditions or specific to individual procedures. Results were presented through a narrative synthesis. PubMed, PsycInfo and Cochrane were searched up to January 2022. Systematic reviews reporting determinants of participation in health screening procedures with grade A or B recommendation according to the US Preventive Services Task Force were included. A total of 85 systematic reviews were included, most which contained both qualitative and quantitative studies on determinants that describe individual factors (961 occurrences), social factors (113 occurrences, healthcare professional factors (149 occurrences), health system factors (105 occurrences) and screening procedure factors (99 occurrences). The most studied screening procedures concerned cervical cancer/human papillomavirus (n = 33), breast cancer (n = 28), colorectal cancer (n = 25) and the human immunodeficiency virus (n = 12). Other conditions have been under-studied (e.g. cardiovascular problems, lung cancer, syphilis). The individual domain, including determinants such as knowledge, beliefs and emotions, was the most covered across health conditions. Healthcare professional's recommendations and the quality of patient-provider communication were identified to have a strong influence on screening participation in most conditions. The other three domains included determinants which were more specific to a condition or a population. Various determinants modifiable in primary care were found in the individual domain and in the health system, healthcare professional and screening procedure domains. Quality was assessed as low for most systematic reviews included. The identification of various modifiable determinants common across conditions highlights the potential of an integrated screening participation approach. Interventions may address common determinants in a broader person-centred framework within which tailoring to specific procedures or populations can be considered. This approach needs to be explored in intervention studies. The systematic review registration is PROSPERO CRD42019126709.

Keywords: Barriers and facilitators; Health conditions; Narrative synthesis; Screening; Umbrella review.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Ackerson, K., & Preston, S. D. (2009). A decision theory perspective on why women do or do not decide to have cancer screening: Systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(6), 1130–1140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.04981.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Adams, L. B., Richmond, J., Corbie-Smith, G., & Powell, W. (2017). Medical mistrust and colorectal cancer screening among African Americans. Journal of Community Health, 42(5), 1044–1061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-017-0339-2 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Aidalina, M., & Syed Mohamed, A. S. J. (2018). The uptake of Mammogram screening in Malaysia and its associated factors: A systematic review. The Medical Journal of Malaysia, 73(4), 202–211. - PubMed
    1. Ait Ouakrim, D., Lockett, T., Boussioutas, A., Keogh, L., Flander, L. B., Hopper, J. L., & Jenkins, M. A. (2013). Screening participation predictors for people at familial risk of colorectal cancer: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(5), 496–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.01.022 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alam, Z., Shafiee Hanjani, L., Dean, J., & Janda, M. (2021). Cervical cancer screening among immigrant women residing in Australia: A systematic review. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 33(8), 816–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/10105395211006600 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources