scholarly journals Australian women’s self‐perceived barriers to participation in cervical cancer screening: A systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Archana Nagendiram ◽  
Hannah Bougher ◽  
Jennifer Banks ◽  
Leanne Hall ◽  
Clare Heal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Perceived Barriers ◽  
Barriers To Participation

scholarly journals International barriers and facilitators for cervical cancer screening among young people: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abirami Kirubarajan ◽  
Shannon Leung ◽  
Xinglin Li ◽  
Matthew Yau ◽  
Mara Sobel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Young People ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Age Group

Background Though cervical cancer is one of the leading causes of death globally, its incidence is nearly entirely preventable. Young people have been an international priority for screening. However, in both high-income and low-income countries, young people have not been screened appropriately according to country-specific guidelines and in many countries, screening rates for this age-group have even dropped. Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to systematically characterize the existing literature on barriers and facilitators for cervical cancer screening among young people globally. Search Strategy We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines of four databases: Medline-OVID, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.Gov. Selection Criteria We only examined original, peer-reviewed literature. Databases were examined from inception until the date of our literature searches (12/03/2020). Articles were excluded if they did not specifically discuss cervical cancer screening, were not specific to young people, or did not report outcomes or evaluation. Data Collection and Analysis All screening and extraction was completed in duplicate with two independent reviewers. Main Results Of the 2177 original database citations, we included 36 studies that met inclusion criteria. Our systematic review found that there are three large categories of barriers for young people: lack of knowledge/awareness, negative perceptions of the test, and practical barriers to testing. Facilitators included stronger relationships with healthcare providers, social norms, support from family, and self-efficacy. Conclusions Health systems worldwide should address the barriers and facilitators to increase cervical cancer screening rates in young people. Further research is required to understand this age group.

scholarly journals Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. e001351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ping Teresa Yeh ◽  
Caitlin E Kennedy ◽  
Hugo de Vuyst ◽  
Manjulaa Narasimhan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Hpv Testing ◽  
Screening Uptake ◽  
Screening Frequency

IntroductionHuman papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling test kits may increase screening for and early detection of cervical cancer and reduce its burden globally. To inform WHO self-care guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of HPV self-sampling among adult women on cervical (pre-)cancer screening uptake, screening frequency, social harms/adverse events and linkage to clinical assessment/treatment.MethodsThe included studies compared women using cervical cancer screening services with HPV self-sampling with women using standard of care, measured at least one outcome, and were published in a peer-reviewed journal. We searched PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CNIAHL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and Embase through October 2018. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for non-randomised studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR).Results33 studies in 34 articles with 369 017 total participants met the inclusion criteria: 29 RCTs and 4 observational studies. All studies examined HPV self-sampling; comparison groups were standard of care (eg, Pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid, clinician-collected HPV testing). 93% of participants were from high-income countries. All 33 studies measured cervical cancer screening uptake. Meta-analysis found greater screening uptake among HPV self-sampling participants compared with control (RR: 2.13, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.40). Effect size varied by HPV test kit dissemination method, whether mailed directly to home (RR: 2.27, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.71), offered door-to-door (RR: 2.37, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.03) or requested on demand (RR: 1.28, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.82). Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in linkage to clinical assessment/treatment between arms (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.57). No studies measured screening frequency or social harms/adverse events.ConclusionA growing evidence base, mainly from high-income countries and with significant heterogeneity, suggests HPV self-sampling can increase cervical cancer screening uptake compared with standard of care, with a marginal effect on linkage to clinical assessment/treatment.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO CRD42018114871.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document