A rapid review of barriers and facilitators to cancer screening uptake (breast, cervical and bowel) in underserved populations
Okolie, C.; Hookway, A.; Wale, A.; Everitt, J.; Shaw, H.; Lewis, R.; Cooper, A.; Edwards, A. A.
Show abstract
In the United Kingdom (UK), the National Health Service (NHS) provides population-based screening programmes for breast, bowel, and cervical cancer. These programmes were temporarily paused in March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in large numbers of the eligible population having their invitations delayed. This disruption may have had a disproportionate impact on underserved populations for whom there was a lower uptake prior to the pandemic. Some people may also be less willing to attend screening after the pandemic. Interventions and campaigns designed to encourage people to take part in cancer screening may need to be adapted after the pandemic, in particular those targeting underserved populations. This rapid review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake in underserved populations (e.g. clinically vulnerable, shielding, multi-morbidities, ethnic minorities, social deprivation, gender, age) during and since the onset of the pandemic, using evidence from the UK and other countries with similar cancer screening programmes (such as Australia and Netherlands), and to compare with the pre-pandemic literature. The pre-pandemic literature was identified using a supplementary scoping search for published systematic reviews. Three primary studies (two published and one ongoing trial) conducted during the pandemic were identified. Five systematic reviews of pre-pandemic evidence were also included. Two qualitative studies conducted during the pandemic were appraised as high quality but both included sample populations with limited representation. No primary studies specifically exploring the impact of the pandemic on barriers and facilitators to screening uptake among underserved groups were identified. The findings did not show marked differences in the barriers and facilitators for screening uptake before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in underserved populations. However, it is unclear whether this is because these genuinely remain unchanged or reflects the lack of available evidence. The findings may only be transferable to the population groups studied.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Understanding preferences for self-sampling in a national cervical screening programme: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment 95%
- Acceptability of extending HPV-based cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years: An interview study with women in England 94%
- Challenges and facilitators in pathways to cancer diagnosis in Southern Africa: A qualitative study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- From many voices, one question: Community co-design of a population-based qualitative cancer research study 94%
- Wellbeing Impact Study of High-Speed 2 (WISH2): Protocol for a mixed-methods examination of the impact of major transport infrastructure development on mental health and wellbeing 93%
- Menopause education of healthcare professionals: A scoping review protocol 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Hospital admissions among adolescents with local authority care experience or special educational needs in England: a population-based cohort study using linked administrative data from health, education and social care services 90%
- Delivering maternal and child health interventions through the private sector in LMIC: a scoping review of strategies and effective approaches 89%
- Ongoing symptoms and functional impairment 12 weeks after testing positive to SARS-CoV-2 or influenza in Australia: an observational cohort study 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of the Kunonga Framework for Extending Approaches in Health Inequality and Inequity Evidence Syntheses 92%
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and well-being of people living with a long-term physical health condition: a qualitative study 92%
- Comparative analysis of policies and programs to support families and children during COVID-19 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A mixed methods study of attitudes on location of gynaecological oncology outpatient care: a patient and healthcare professional questionnaire 93%
- Improving local authority financial support services for users with complex health needs: a mixed-method economic evaluation of Social Navigators in South Tyneside, UK 91%
- Family-centered postnatal training and adherence to newborn care practices in district hospitals in two Indian states: A quasi-experimental intervention study 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.