Back

Understanding problems and solutions related to accessing cervical screening for people with a physical disability, condition, impairment or difference

Kemp, E.; Sim, J.; Wright-Bevans, K.; Renke, S.; Chew-Graham, C. A.; Finney, A.; Harper, C.; Marlow, L. A.; Sherman, S. M.

2026-06-03 primary care research
10.64898/2026.05.27.26354052 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Physically Disabled women are less likely to access cervical screening than non-disabled women, yet little research has been conducted to understand the problems that Disabled women face or potential solutions. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was conducted with 1493 UK-based participants who identified as having a physical disability, impairment, condition, or difference that makes cervical screening difficult or impossible. Participants were presented with statements about cervical screening problems and potential solutions and asked to indicate agreement using a 5-point scale. They also provided open-ended comments. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, multinomial logistic regression and thematic analysis. Results More than half of participants reported delaying/missing (46.8%) or never attending (8.8%) screening, with most of those (71.0% and 81.4% respectively) indicating that the main reason was disability-related factors. The highest levels of agreement for problems were for concerns about pain, embarrassment, and fear of what the test might find and for potential solutions were for having a doctor or nurse who is willing to try different solutions, discusses specific needs, and understands physical disability. Never-attendance (OR = 0.022, 95% CI 0.014, 0.035) and delaying or missing appointments, (OR = 0.057, 95% CI 0.043, 0.076) negatively predicted future screening attendance. Six themes were identified from open-ended comments, supporting and extending the quantitative findings. Conclusion Disabled women face the same problems related to cervical screening as non-disabled women and additionally face disability-specific problems. Cervical sample taker training should incorporate ways to support physically Disabled women to have equitable access to screening.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
18.9%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 12%
14.9%
3
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
4
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
6
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
7
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
8
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
9
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
10
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
11
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
12
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
14
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
15
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
16
Journal of Sleep Research
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
17
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
18
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
19
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
20
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 65%
1.2%
21
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
22
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
23
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
24
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
25
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
26
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
27
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
28
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
29
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
30
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%