A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators influencing the cancer screening behaviour among people with intellectual disabilities

Chan, Dorothy N.S.; Law, Ben M. F.; Au, Darren; So, Winnie K.W.; Fan, Ning

doi:10.1016/j.canep.2021.102084

Cited by 21 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Disability is potentially an important predictor of cancer screening uptake. People with disabilities face a range of barriers to accessing screening, including a lack of accessibility (information, transport, equipment, and facilities), a lack of affordability, communication difficulties, and negative attitudes of healthcare professionals [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. They are also on average poorer and with less education, two known predictors of low screening uptake [ 4 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disability and Participation in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Andiwijaya

Davey

Bessame

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well established that access to preventative care, such as breast or cervical cancer screening, can reduce morbidity and mortality. Certain groups may be missed out of these healthcare services, such as women with disabilities, as they face many access barriers due to underlying inequalities and negative attitudes. However, the data have not been reviewed on whether women with disabilities face inequalities in the uptake of these services. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening in women with and without disabilities. A search was conducted in July 2021 across four databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Global Health, and CINAHL. Quantitative studies comparing the uptake of breast or cervical cancer screening between women with and without disabilities were eligible. Twenty-nine studies were included, all from high-income settings. One third of the 29 studies (34.5%, n = 10) were deemed to have a high risk of bias, and the remainder a low risk of bias. The pooled estimates showed that women with disabilities have 0.78 (95% CI: 0.72–0.84) lower odds of attending breast cancer screening and have 0.63 (95% CI: 0.45–0.88) lower odds of attending cervical cancer screening, compared to women without disabilities. In conclusion, women with disabilities face disparities in receipt of preventative cancer care. There is consequently an urgent need to evaluate and improve the inclusivity of cancer screening programs and thereby prevent avoidable morbidity and mortality.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disability and Participation in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Andiwijaya

Davey

Bessame

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The data and results obtained from parts 1a and 1b will be triangulated with the findings from previous research that focuses on cancer screening attendance by PwLD [ 6 , 30 – 32 ]. This research on PwLD discovered the barriers to cancer screening included embarrassment, unpreparedness, negative interactions with healthcare professionals, a lack of knowledge, and fear [ 30 ]. Facilitators that were identified included living in a supervised setting, prior use of other healthcare services, and being educated about screening via social media [ 30 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…This research on PwLD discovered the barriers to cancer screening included embarrassment, unpreparedness, negative interactions with healthcare professionals, a lack of knowledge, and fear [ 30 ]. Facilitators that were identified included living in a supervised setting, prior use of other healthcare services, and being educated about screening via social media [ 30 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A protocol to identify the barriers and facilitators for people with severe mental illness and/or learning disabilities for PErson Centred Cancer Screening Services (PECCS)

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To identify the barriers and facilitators that people with severe mental illness and people with learning disabilities may encounter when accessing cancer screening and make recommendations for implementing reasonable adjustments throughout cancer screening services. Methods and analysis An 18-month sequential, mixed-methods study comprising of two phases of work and underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory, recruiting from across the North-East and North Cumbria. The first phase aims to identify the barriers and facilitators for people with severe mental illness in accessing cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening. A systematic review of eight databases (Part 1a; PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022331781) alongside semi-structured interviews of up to 36 people with severe mental illness (Part 1b) will occur. Additional characteristics indicating populations whose perspectives may not have been accounted for in the systematic review will be targeted in the interviews. Potential participants will be identified from a range of settings across the North-East and North Cumbria, including through social media and gatekeepers within National Health Service Trusts and charities. Interviews will be analysed using framework analysis, which will be in line with the Normalisation Process Theory. The second phase of the project (part 2a) involves triangulating the results of the systematic review and interviews with existing research previously completed with people with learning disabilities accessing cancer screening. This will be to identify population specific barriers and facilitators across people with learning disabilities and people with severe mental illness to access cancer screening services. Following triangulation, part 2b will include designing and planning a future study involving stakeholders in cancer screening to explore the feasibility, practicality, and priority for implementing the recommendations to improve person centred cancer screening services (PECCS). Ethics and dissemination This study has received Teesside University ethical approval, Health Research Authority approval (IRAS: 310622) and favourable opinion (REF: 22/PR/0793). Findings will be disseminated through a range of academic and non-academic modes including infographics, blog posts and academic publications.

show abstract

“…CRC screening programmes, however, are well known for facing challenges due to low participation. This jeopardizes the benefits of screening, that is, decreased incidence and mortality in CRC 2,5 and equal access to CRC screening programmes 6–9 . However, alongside a high uptake, it is also desired that individuals make an informed decision on knowledge rather than ignorance, misconceptions, or fear, especially since screening programmes approach seemingly healthy individuals 10–12 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This jeopardizes the benefits of screening, that is, decreased incidence and mortality in CRC 2 , 5 and equal access to CRC screening programmes. 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 However, alongside a high uptake, it is also desired that individuals make an informed decision on knowledge rather than ignorance, misconceptions, or fear, especially since screening programmes approach seemingly healthy individuals. 10 , 11 , 12 To enhance an individual's autonomy while participating in CRC screening, a decision aid (DA) can be helpful.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Different information needs—The major reasons for calling the helpline when invited to colorectal cancer screening

Fritzell

Kottorp

Jervaeus

2022

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: This study pertains to the design of a decision aid (DA) to shed light on information and support needs in colorectal cancer screening, with the aim to explore the calling patterns to the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO) study's helpline.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with data from documented telephone calls to the SCREESCO study, including individuals, 59-60 years, randomized to colonoscopy or high sensitive faecal immunochemical test (FIT).Results: More than 2000 calls (women 58.5%; colonoscopy 59%) were analysed.Calling patterns: unsubscribing from screening, confirmation of participation, logistical concerns about the screening procedure, counselling, and FIT screening difficulties or in need of a new FIT test. Comorbidity was the most frequent reason for unsubscribing and most of the counselling calls included questions about the FIT test or the colonoscopy. Conclusion:Most of the calls to the helpline seemed to be related to individuals' lack of understanding about the organization of the screening programme and the screening procedure. Therefore, we find it important to further stress the tailoring part in our DA developing process, that is, provide limited information initially, with the possibility of access to more, if desired by the individual, still with respect to the individual's needs, health and digital literacy.

show abstract

A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators influencing the cancer screening behaviour among people with intellectual disabilities

Cited by 21 publications

References 46 publications

Disability and Participation in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Disability and Participation in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A protocol to identify the barriers and facilitators for people with severe mental illness and/or learning disabilities for PErson Centred Cancer Screening Services (PECCS)

Different information needs—The major reasons for calling the helpline when invited to colorectal cancer screening

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About