11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis

          Summary Background The knowledge that persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the main cause of cervical cancer has resulted in the development of prophylactic vaccines to prevent HPV infection and HPV assays that detect nucleic acids of the virus. WHO has launched a Global Initiative to scale up preventive, screening, and treatment interventions to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem during the 21st century. Therefore, our study aimed to assess the existing burden of cervical cancer as a baseline from which to assess the effect of this initiative. Methods For this worldwide analysis, we used data of cancer estimates from 185 countries from the Global Cancer Observatory 2018 database. We used a hierarchy of methods dependent on the availability and quality of the source information from population-based cancer registries to estimate incidence of cervical cancer. For estimation of cervical cancer mortality, we used the WHO mortality database. Countries were grouped in 21 subcontinents and were also categorised as high-resource or lower-resource countries, on the basis of their Human Development Index. We calculated the number of cervical cancer cases and deaths in a given country, directly age-standardised incidence and mortality rate of cervical cancer, indirectly standardised incidence ratio and mortality ratio, cumulative incidence and mortality rate, and average age at diagnosis. Findings Approximately 570 000 cases of cervical cancer and 311 000 deaths from the disease occurred in 2018. Cervical cancer was the fourth most common cancer in women, ranking after breast cancer (2·1 million cases), colorectal cancer (0·8 million) and lung cancer (0·7 million). The estimated age-standardised incidence of cervical cancer was 13·1 per 100 000 women globally and varied widely among countries, with rates ranging from less than 2 to 75 per 100 000 women. Cervical cancer was the leading cause of cancer-related death in women in eastern, western, middle, and southern Africa. The highest incidence was estimated in Eswatini, with approximately 6·5% of women developing cervical cancer before age 75 years. China and India together contributed more than a third of the global cervical burden, with 106 000 cases in China and 97 000 cases in India, and 48 000 deaths in China and 60 000 deaths in India. Globally, the average age at diagnosis of cervical cancer was 53 years, ranging from 44 years (Vanuatu) to 68 years (Singapore). The global average age at death from cervical cancer was 59 years, ranging from 45 years (Vanuatu) to 76 years (Martinique). Cervical cancer ranked in the top three cancers affecting women younger than 45 years in 146 (79%) of 185 countries assessed. Interpretation Cervical cancer continues to be a major public health problem affecting middle-aged women, particularly in less-resourced countries. The global scale-up of HPV vaccination and HPV-based screening—including self-sampling—has potential to make cervical cancer a rare disease in the decades to come. Our study could help shape and monitor the initiative to eliminate cervical cancer as a major public health problem. Funding Belgian Foundation Against Cancer, DG Research and Innovation of the European Commission, and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials.

            In four randomised trials, human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening for cervical cancer was compared with cytology-based cervical screening, and precursors of cancer were the endpoint in every trial. However, direct estimates are missing of the relative efficacy of HPV-based versus cytology-based screening for prevention of invasive cancer in women who undergo regular screening, of modifiers (eg, age) of this relative efficacy, and of the duration of protection. We did a follow-up study of the four randomised trials to investigate these outcomes. 176,464 women aged 20-64 years were randomly assigned to HPV-based (experimental arm) or cytology-based (control arm) screening in Sweden (Swedescreen), the Netherlands (POBASCAM), England (ARTISTIC), and Italy (NTCC). We followed up these women for a median of 6·5 years (1,214,415 person-years) and identified 107 invasive cervical carcinomas by linkage with screening, pathology, and cancer registries, by masked review of histological specimens, or from reports. Cumulative and study-adjusted rate ratios (experimental vs control) were calculated for incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma. The rate ratio for invasive cervical carcinoma among all women from recruitment to end of follow-up was 0·60 (95% CI 0·40-0·89), with no heterogeneity between studies (p=0·52). Detection of invasive cervical carcinoma was similar between screening methods during the first 2·5 years of follow-up (0·79, 0·46-1·36) but was significantly lower in the experimental arm thereafter (0·45, 0·25-0·81). In women with a negative screening test at entry, the rate ratio was 0·30 (0·15-0·60). The cumulative incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma in women with negative entry tests was 4·6 per 10(5) (1·1-12·1) and 8·7 per 10(5) (3·3-18·6) at 3·5 and 5·5 years, respectively, in the experimental arm, and 15·4 per 10(5) (7·9-27·0) and 36·0 per 10(5) (23·2-53·5), respectively, in the control arm. Rate ratios did not differ by cancer stage, but were lower for adenocarcinoma (0·31, 0·14-0·69) than for squamous-cell carcinoma (0·78, 0·49-1·25). The rate ratio was lowest in women aged 30-34 years (0·36, 0·14-0·94). HPV-based screening provides 60-70% greater protection against invasive cervical carcinomas compared with cytology. Data of large-scale randomised trials support initiation of HPV-based screening from age 30 years and extension of screening intervals to at least 5 years. European Union, Belgian Foundation Against Cancer, KCE-Centre d'Expertise, IARC, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, the Italian Ministry of Health. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              HPV vaccination introduction worldwide and WHO and UNICEF estimates of national HPV immunization coverage 2010–2019

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                25 May 2023
                2023
                : 11
                : 1144674
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Centre for Global Mental Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London, United Kingdom
                [2] 2Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine , London, United Kingdom
                [3] 3Department of Health Services, Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London, United Kingdom
                [4] 4Centre for Global Chronic Conditions, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine , London, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                Edited by: Andrew Scott LaJoie, University of Louisville, United States

                Reviewed by: Naomi Lee, Northern Arizona University, United States; Beatriz Cuesta-Briand, University of Western Australia, Australia

                *Correspondence: Rachel Greenley, rachel.greenley1@ 123456lshtm.ac.uk

                These authors share first authorship

                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2023.1144674
                10247980
                37304105
                2b1a45ae-55cc-4891-a43d-ece2fbfe7a44
                Copyright © 2023 Greenley, Bell, Rigby, Legood, Kirkby, McKee, and the CBIG-SCREEN Consortium.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 14 January 2023
                : 28 April 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 72, Pages: 16, Words: 11999
                Categories
                Public Health
                Review
                Custom metadata
                Public Health Policy

                cervical cancer screening,vulnerable and underserved populations,barriers,facilitators,europe

                Comments

                Comment on this article