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

      What are the barriers towards cervical cancer screening for vulnerable women? A qualitative comparative analysis of stakeholder perspectives in seven European countries

      research-article
      1 , , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 7 , 8 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 10 , 10 , 10 , 10 , 11 , 11 , 11 , 1 , 12 , 1 , 12
      (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab)
      BMJ Open
      BMJ Publishing Group
      Gynaecological oncology, Health Equity, Health Services Accessibility, PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, PUBLIC HEALTH, QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

      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

          Objectives

          The aim of this study was to map and compare stakeholders’ perceptions of barriers towards cervical cancer screening for vulnerable women in seven European countries.

          Design

          In Collaborative User Boards, stakeholders were invited to participate to identify barriers towards participation in cervical cancer screening.

          Setting

          The study is nested in the European Union-funded project CBIG-SCREEN which aims to tackle inequity in cervical cancer screening for vulnerable women (www.cbig-screen.eu). Data collection took place in Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy, Portugal and Romania.

          Participants

          Participants represented micro-level stakeholders covering representatives of users, that is, vulnerable women, meso-level stakeholders covering healthcare professionals and social workers, and macro-level stakeholders covering programme managers and decision-makers.

          Methods

          Across the seven countries, 25 meetings in Collaborative User Boards with a duration of 2 hours took place between October 2021 and June 2022. The meetings were video recorded or audio recorded, transcribed and translated into English for a qualitative framework analysis.

          Results

          120 participants took part in the Collaborative User Boards. Context-specific barriers were related to different healthcare systems and characteristics of vulnerable populations. In Romania and Bulgaria, the lack of a continuous screening effort and lack of ways to identify eligible women were identified as barriers for all women rather than being specific for women in vulnerable situations. The participants in Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy and Portugal identified providers’ lack of cultural and social sensitivity towards vulnerable women as barriers. In all countries, vulnerable women’s fear, shame and lack of priority to preventive healthcare were identified as psychological barriers.

          Conclusion

          The study provides an overview of stakeholders’ perceived barriers towards vulnerable women’s cervical cancer screening participation in seven European countries. The organisation of healthcare systems and the maturity of screening programmes differ between countries, while vulnerable women’s psychological barriers had several similarities.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Defining equity in health.

          To propose a definition of health equity to guide operationalisation and measurement, and to discuss the practical importance of clarity in defining this concept. Conceptual discussion. Setting, Patients/Participants, and Main results: not applicable. For the purposes of measurement and operationalisation, equity in health is the absence of systematic disparities in health (or in the major social determinants of health) between groups with different levels of underlying social advantage/disadvantage-that is, wealth, power, or prestige. Inequities in health systematically put groups of people who are already socially disadvantaged (for example, by virtue of being poor, female, and/or members of a disenfranchised racial, ethnic, or religious group) at further disadvantage with respect to their health; health is essential to wellbeing and to overcoming other effects of social disadvantage. Equity is an ethical principle; it also is consonant with and closely related to human rights principles. The proposed definition of equity supports operationalisation of the right to the highest attainable standard of health as indicated by the health status of the most socially advantaged group. Assessing health equity requires comparing health and its social determinants between more and less advantaged social groups. These comparisons are essential to assess whether national and international policies are leading toward or away from greater social justice in health.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Screening for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

            Background The systematic review on which this paper is based provided evidence for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to update their guideline regarding screening for cervical cancer. In this article we highlight three questions covered in the full review that pertain to the effectiveness of screening for reducing cervical cancer mortality and incidence as well as optimal timing and frequency of screening. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central from 1995 to 2012 for relevant randomized controlled trials and observational studies with comparison groups. Eligible studies included women aged 15 to 70 years who were screened using conventional cytology, liquid-based cytology or human papillomavirus DNA tests. Relevance screening, data extraction, risk of bias analyses and quality assessments were performed in duplicate. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model on the one body of evidence that could be pooled. Results From the 15,145 screened citations, 27 papers (24 studies) were included; five older studies located in a United States Preventive Services Task Force review were also included. A randomized controlled trial in India showed even a single lifetime screening test significantly decreased the risk of mortality from and incidence of advanced cervical cancer compared to no screening (mortality: risk ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.47, 0.90; incidence: relative risk 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.42, 0.75). Cytology screening was shown to be beneficial in a cohort study that found testing significantly reduced the risk of being diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer compared to no screening (risk ratio 0.38; 95% confidence interval 0.23, 0.63). Pooled evidence from a dozen case–control studies also indicated a significant protective effect of cytology screening (odds ratio 0.35; 95% confidence interval 0.30, 0.41). This review found no conclusive evidence for establishing optimal ages to start and stop cervical screening, or to determine how often to screen; however the available data suggests substantial protective effects for screening women 30 years and older and for intervals of up to five years. Conclusions The available evidence supports the conclusion that cervical screening does offer protective benefits and is associated with a reduction in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and cervical cancer mortality.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Status of implementation and organization of cancer screening in The European Union Member States-Summary results from the second European screening report

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2024
                17 May 2024
                : 14
                : 5
                : e079921
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentUniversity Research Clinic for Cancer Screening , Ringgold_53198Randers Regional Hospital , Randers, Denmark
                [2 ] departmentCIC-P INSERM 1432 , Ringgold_27102Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale , Paris, France
                [3 ] departmentEarly Detection, Prevention and Infections Branch , Ringgold_56140IARC , Lyon, France
                [4 ] departmentCentre d’Etudes des Mouvements Sociaux , Ringgold_27059Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales , Paris, France
                [5 ] departmentServizio Interaziendale Epidemiologia , Ringgold_390233Azienda Unita Sanitaria Locale della Romagna , Ravenna, Italy
                [6 ] departmentIstituto per lo Studio, la Prevenzione e la Rete Oncologica , Osservatorio Nazionale Screening , Florence, Italy
                [7 ] Ringgold_54741Babes-Bolyai University , Cluj-Napoca, Romania
                [8 ] departmentInstitute of Family Medicine and Public Health , Ringgold_37546University of Tartu , Tartu, Estonia
                [9 ] Ringgold_37546University of Tartu , Tartu, Estonia
                [10 ] departmentEPI Unit–Institute of Public Health , Ringgold_26706University of Porto , Porto, Portugal
                [11 ] Health Psychology Research Center , Sofia, Bulgaria
                [12 ] departmentDepartment of Clinical Medicine , Ringgold_1006Aarhus University , Aarhus, Denmark
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Rikke Buus Bøje; rikkbj@ 123456rm.dk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0924-1057
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0028-1837
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0486-196X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3262-5083
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9703-2460
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6773-5931
                http://orcid.org/0009-0003-5852-697X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6566-927X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4875-5897
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2055-9421
                http://orcid.org/0009-0000-0125-1061
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4036-3856
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4688-2291
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9410-633X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6872-6671
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8621-6288
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1870-1430
                http://orcid.org/0009-0001-7353-982X
                http://orcid.org/0009-0000-2388-4011
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8823-4404
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4074-6504
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2099-253X
                Article
                bmjopen-2023-079921
                10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079921
                11103196
                38760040
                72d6222d-b9bc-4ec2-8acf-a2b2f520161d
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 19 September 2023
                : 31 March 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: European Commision H2020;
                Award ID: 964049
                Categories
                Public Health
                1506
                1724
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                gynaecological oncology,health equity,health services accessibility,preventive medicine,public health,qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article