Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Health Screening: an Umbrella Review Across Conditions

Bonniec, Alice Le; Sun, Sophie; ANDRIN, Amandine; Dima, A.; Letrilliart, Laurent

doi:10.1007/s11121-022-01388-y

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 118 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also found that cancer screening knowledge at baseline was associated with screening during the follow-up period. These findings provide further support for knowledge being an important facilitator of cancer screening ( 50 , 51 ). The intervention materials included low-literacy educational materials to improve cancer screening knowledge; however, knowledge measured at follow-up was not associated with screening (data not shown).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Self-sampling tools to increase cancer screening among underserved patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Moss,

Entenman,

Stoltzfus

et al. 2023

JNCI Cancer Spectrum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Screening can reduce cancer mortality, but uptake is suboptimal and characterized by disparities. Home-based self-sampling can facilitate screening for colorectal cancer (with stool tests, eg, fecal immunochemical tests [FIT]) and for cervical cancer (with self-collected human papillomavirus [HPV] tests), especially among patients who face barriers to accessing healthcare. Additional data are needed on feasibility and potential effects of self-sampling tools for cancer screening among underserved patients. Methods We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with patients (female, ages 50-65, out-of-date with colorectal and cervical cancer screening) recruited from federally-qualified health centers in rural and racially-segregated counties in Pennsylvania. Participants in the Standard of care arm (n = 24) received screening reminder letters. Participants in the Self-sampling arm (n = 24) received self-sampling tools for FIT and HPV testing. We assessed uptake of screening (10-week follow-up), self-sampling screening outcomes, and psychosocial variables. Analyses used Fisher’s exact tests to assess the effect of study arm on outcomes. Results Cancer screening was higher in the Self-sampling arm than the Standard of care arm (colorectal: 75% vs 13%, respectively, odds ratio [OR]=31.32, 95% confidence interval [CI]=5.20-289.33; cervical: 79% vs 8%, OR = 72.03, 95% CI = 9.15-1141.41). Among participants who returned the self-sampling tools, the prevalence of abnormal findings was 24% for colorectal and 18% for cervical cancer screening. Cancer screening knowledge was positively associated with uptake (p<.05). Conclusions Self-sampling tools can increase colorectal and cervical cancer screening among unscreened, underserved patients. Increasing the use of self-sampling tools can improve primary care and cancer detection among underserved patients. Clinical Trials Registration Number STUDY00015480.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Self-sampling tools to increase cancer screening among underserved patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Moss,

Entenman,

Stoltzfus

et al. 2023

JNCI Cancer Spectrum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Healthcare professionals’ recommendations and the quality of patient-provider communication strongly influenced screening participation. 27 Our findings emphasized the importance of doctors explaining the importance of BC and CC screening, especially for high-risk women. In some developed countries, the role of the specialist breast-care nurse has evolved, and these nurses are often involved in other tasks such as public advocacy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

The Practice and Willingness of Women Towards Opportunistic Screening for Breast and Cervical Cancers in Sichuan Province, China: A Cross-Sectional Study

Li¹,

Huang²,

Yang³

et al. 2023

RMHP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To understand the practices and willingness of Chinese women to undergo opportunistic screening for breast cancer (BC) and cervical cancer (CC). Patients and Methods From July to August 2021, a cross-sectional study of 1446 women from six cities in Sichuan Province, China, was conducted. A questionnaire was used to investigate practices, willingness, and barriers to opportunistic screening for BC and CC. Furthermore, potential factors for opportunistic screening willingness were analyzed using the chi-squared test and logistic regression. Results During their lifetime, 312 (21.6%) and 388 (26.8%) women had undergone opportunistic screening for BC and CC, respectively. There were 1069 (73.9%) women willing to accept physician-recommended screening during a medical visit, while 835 (57.7%) were willing to have a voluntary screening at a healthcare institution. The main barriers to reluctance to participate in physician-recommended and voluntary screenings were “no symptoms; hence, no need for screening” and “unwillingness or difficulty in paying screening cost”. Ethnic minorities, lower education levels, and menopause were inversely associated, whereas awareness of the screening methods and eligibility for screening were positively associated with physician-recommended and voluntary screenings ( P < 0.05). Furthermore, awareness of “two-cancers” screening was positively associated with physician-recommended screening ( P < 0.05). Conclusion BC and CC opportunistic screening rates in Sichuan Province were low. The willingness to undergo physician-recommended screening was high, while that towards individual initiative screening was low. Public health education should be strengthened to increase cancer prevention awareness and knowledge of cancer screening, especially for women with low education, ethnic minorities, and post-menopause, for whom tailored interventions are suggested. In addition, novel ways of sharing screening costs need to be explored.

show abstract

“…A 2022 umbrella review listed barriers and facilitators in health screening ( 29 ). The review used a framework to classify barriers and facilitators in five domains as individual factors, social factors, health system factors, healthcare professional and screening procedure factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for cardiovascular risk in the general population: The SPICES implementation survey

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn 2019, cardiovascular diseases (CVD) caused 32% of deaths worldwide. The SPICES survey involved five countries in an international primary CVD prevention implementation study in the general population. The French SPICES survey was implemented in the Centre Ouest Bretagne area (COB), which is a rural, economically deprived, medically underserved territory with high cardiovascular mortality. A CVD screening in the general population was needed to select the implementation population without overburdening family practitioner (FP) workforces. The efficacy and the replicability of such a screening were unknown. The aims of this study were to identify the characteristics of the individuals undergoing CVD risk assessment with the Non-Laboratory Interheart risk score (NL-IHRS), and to identify barriers and explore facilitators when screening the general population.MethodsAn implementation study combining a cross-sectional descriptive study with qualitative interviews was undertaken. The NL-IHRS was completed by trained screeners selected from health students, pharmacists, nurses, and physiotherapists in the area with a dedicated e-tool in sport and cultural events and public places. After the screening, all screener groups were interviewed until theoretical saturation for each group. Thematic analysis was performed using double-blind coding.ResultsIn 5 months, 3,384 assessments were undertaken in 60 different places, mostly by health students. A total of 1,587, 1,309, and 488 individuals were at low, moderate, and high CVD risk. Stressed or depressed individuals were remarkably numerous (40.1 and 24.5% of the population, respectively). Forty-seven interviews were conducted. The main facilitators were willingness of the population, trust between screeners and the research team, and media publicity. The main barriers were lack of motivation of some screeners, some individuals at risk, some stakeholders and difficulties in handling the e-tool.ConclusionThe efficacy of CVD risk screening while using mostly health students was excellent and preserved the FP workforce. Replicability was highly feasible if research teams took great care to establish and maintain trust between screeners and researchers. The e-tools should be more user-friendly.

show abstract

Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Health Screening: an Umbrella Review Across Conditions

Cited by 8 publications

References 118 publications

Self-sampling tools to increase cancer screening among underserved patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Self-sampling tools to increase cancer screening among underserved patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial

The Practice and Willingness of Women Towards Opportunistic Screening for Breast and Cervical Cancers in Sichuan Province, China: A Cross-Sectional Study

Screening for cardiovascular risk in the general population: The SPICES implementation survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About