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
. 2023 May 25:11:1144674.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1144674. eCollection 2023.

Factors influencing the participation of groups identified as underserved in cervical cancer screening in Europe: a scoping review of the literature

Rachel Greenley  1 , Sadie Bell  2 , Samuel Rigby  3 , Rosa Legood  4 , Victoria Kirkby  3 , Martin McKee  3 ; CBIG-SCREEN Consortium
Affiliations

Factors influencing the participation of groups identified as underserved in cervical cancer screening in Europe: a scoping review of the literature

Rachel Greenley et al. Front Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Cervical cancer is a preventable and inequitably distributed disease. Screening plays a vital role in prevention, but many women face barriers to participation. The aims of this scoping review, undertaken to inform the co-design of interventions to equitably increase screening uptake, were to: (1) identify barriers and facilitators to cervical cancer screening for underserved populations, and (2) identify and describe the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving participation in cervical cancer screening among underserved groups in Europe.

Methods: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies focusing on barriers and facilitators to cervical screening participation and interventions to improve uptake undertaken in Europe and published after 2000 were included. Four electronic databases were searched to identify relevant papers. Titles and abstracts were screened, full text reviewed, and key findings extracted. Data were extracted and analyzed according to different health system strata: system-wide (macro), service specific (meso) and individual/community specific (micro). Within these categories, themes were identified, and the population groups impacted were recorded. All findings are presented in accordance with (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results: 33 studies on barriers and facilitators and eight intervention studies met the inclusion criteria. Collectively, the findings of these studies presented a wide array of screening uptake barriers, facilitators, and interventions, predominantly related to screening service and individual/community factors. However, although diverse, certain core themes around information provision, prompts for participation and the need for inclusive spaces were apparent. Implementation of screening programs should focus on: (1) reducing identifiable barriers, (2) increasing public awareness, and (3) providing patient reminders and measures to promote engagement by healthcare providers.

Conclusion: There are many barriers to uptake of cervical cancer screening and this review, nested within a larger study, will inform work to devise a solution alongside groups identified in three European countries.

Keywords: Europe; barriers; cervical cancer screening; facilitators; vulnerable and underserved populations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection flow diagram.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjosé S, Saraiya M, Ferlay J, et al. . Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health. (2020) 8:e191–203. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boyle P, Veronesi U, Tubiana M, Alexander F, da Silva FC, Denis L, et al. . European school of oncology advisory report to the European Commission for the “Europe against Cancer Programme” European code against cancer. Eur J Cancer. (1995) 31:1395–405. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(95)00334-F - DOI - PubMed
    1. Falcaro M, Castañon A, Ndlela B, Checchi M, Soldan K, Lopez-Bernal J, et al. . The effects of the national HPV vaccination programme in England, UK, on cervical cancer and grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence: a register-based observational study. Lancet. (2021) 398:2084–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02178-4, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfstrom KM, Tunesi S, Snijders PJ, Arbyn M, et al. . Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet. (2014) 383:524–32. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62218-7, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. European Commission . (2021). Europe’s beating cancer plan: European Commission Brussels. Available at: https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/eu_cancer-plan_en_0.pdf (Accessed March 28, 2023).

Publication types