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 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.