Are women satisfied with their experience with breast cancer screening? Systematic review of the literature

What factors influence the uptake of bowel, breast and cervical cancer screening? An overview of international research

BACKGROUND

For cancer screening programmes to be effective in early detection it is important that those invited can access screening services and understand the benefits of participation. A better understanding of the factors that matter to potential participants of cancer screening programmes can assist in developing strategies to increase current uptake.

METHODS

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to answer the question: What factors influence the uptake of cancer screening services (breast, bowel and cervical) in high-income countries? A thematic approach supported by tabular summaries and qualitative heat maps was used to categorize factors, described as 'barriers' or 'facilitators'.

RESULTS

A total of 41 systematic reviews met the criteria for inclusion. The barrier with the greatest number of 'hot spots' across all three screening programmes was a fear of the unknown regarding a possible diagnosis of cancer or abnormal screening results, followed closely by a general lack of knowledge surrounding cancer screening programmes. The greatest collective facilitator to uptake was recommendation by a healthcare provider to attend screening.

CONCLUSION

Across all factors 'trust' and 'building trusted relationships' can be seen as integral to the success of cancer screening programmes and must be reflective of collaborative efforts to mitigate barriers and enhance facilitators to uptake. There is future scope to consider interventions that (i) increase demand for screening services, (ii) reduce barriers to uptake of services and/or (iii) are relevant to the healthcare system and those providing services.

Participants' satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening programs: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Since satisfaction with cancer screening experience can increase adherence to programs and contribute to reduce morbidity and mortality, its assessment is crucial for programs´ effectiveness. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review about satisfaction of participants with organized colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

We searched relevant scientific databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) from inception to May 2022. We selected cross-sectional studies and clinical trials reporting a quantitative survey-based measure of satisfaction towards CRC screening.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies were included, being published from 1992 to 2019 for an overall number of 21 surveys. Of those, 16 (76%) investigated satisfaction with screening tests (fecal occult blood test, fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomographic colonography), 4 (19%) with colonoscopy as assessment test after suspicious findings, and 2 (10%) with both the screening and assessment phase. None of the included surveys used a validated questionnaire. Most surveys reported a high level of satisfaction for both screening and further assessment phases. Temporary pain, discomfort, embarrassment, and anxiety while waiting for results were the commonest negative aspects perceived, with some variability across studies and considered procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfaction with the information and communication about screening was generally good, but some authors reported participants' sub-optimal understanding of informative material. Satisfaction with CRC screening is generally high, but its evaluation is performed using non-validated instruments, which limits the interpretation of results and prevents comparability of the current body of evidence.

Factors Influencing the Experience of Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The persistent high morbidity and mortality from breast and cervical cancer in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) may be influenced by global disparities in the uptake of screening services. This review sought to synthesize existing evidence to determine factors that influence the experience of women relating to breast and cervical screening in LMICs.

METHODS

A qualitative systematic review of the literature identified through Global Health, Embase, PsycInfo, and MEDLINE. Eligible studies included those outlining primary qualitative research or mixed-method studies with reporting of qualitative findings, detailing women's experiences of involvement with programs for breast or cervical cancer screening. Framework synthesis was used to explore and organize findings from primary qualitative studies and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

Database searches yielded 7,264 studies for title and abstract screening and 90 full-text articles for screening, with qualitative data from 17 studies and a total of 722 participants included in this review. Four stages influencing experiences of women were generated across both breast and cervical cancer screening approaches, with individual (eg, knowledge of cancer), social (eg, religion, cultural beliefs), and health system (eg, accessibility) factors identified that influence women's initial and subsequent engagement.

CONCLUSION

This study synthesizes existing evidence of factors that influence engagement with breast and cervical cancer screening in LMICs. Evidence-informed recommendations are proposed that may improve the experience of cancer screening in LMICs, with further research necessary to explore their operationalization and impact on cancer care delivery.

Participation in breast cancer screening and its influence on other cancer screening invitations: study in women aged 56 years old in four French departments

BACKGROUND

Today, women 50 years of age are offered three types of cancer screening in France. However, participation is not optimal. The aim was to describe (1) participation in organised breast cancer screening (OS) of women aged 56 years old, and the influence of this participation on colorectal and cervical cancer screening, (2) the reasons for non-participation in breast cancer OS, and (3) the reasons for screening before age 50.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to 56-year-old women in four French departments to identify their participation behaviour in three breast cancer OS invitations and their reasons for non-participation. Three groups were determined according to the number of participations in breast cancer OS (3, 1-2 and 0). We described the quantitative responses and grouped the qualitative responses thematically.

RESULTS

A total of 4634 women responded to the questionnaire. Seventy-six percent had undergone all three breast cancer OS, 16% irregular and 7% non-participant. Among women who irregularly perform breast cancer OS, 50.5% also irregularly perform colorectal cancer OS. Women who participated in all three invitations for the breast cancer OS performed more smear tests than women in the other groups. Many of the irregular participants or non-participants underwent opportunistic screening, often initiated before the age of 50. The reasons for non-participation in breast cancer OS were mainly medical or participation in opportunistic screening.

CONCLUSION

There is no fundamental opposition to participation in breast cancer screening. However, it remains of the utmost importance that women should be better informed about OS and its benefits.

Factors Promoting Breast, Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screenings participation: A Systematic Review

Objective

The present study aims at systematically reviewing research conducted on factors promoting breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings participation.

Methods

A literature search in MEDLINE/PubMed and PsycInfo from January 2017 to October 2021 was performed. Data extraction, researchers' full agreement and the inclusion criteria produced 102 eligible studies. Data were narratively synthesized and critically interpreted.

Results

Multiple factors favoring or hindering breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings were identified and summarized as factors operating at the individual level (background information, individual characteristics, emotions related to screening procedure and to cancer, knowledge and awareness), at the relational level (relationships with healthcare staff, significant others, community members), and at the healthcare system level (systems barriers/policy, lack of staff). A critical appraisal of studies revealed a fragmentation in the literature, with a compartmentalization of studies by type of cancer screening, country and specific populations of destination.

Conclusions

Overall findings indicated that greater integration of research results obtained independently for each cancer diagnosis and within the different countries/populations could foster a more comprehensive understanding of factors potentially enhancing the participation in breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings worldwide. This review, which is grounded in the current context of globalization and superdiversification in population, can help to enhance a better integration between research and practices, by supporting the development of more effective and inclusive evidence‐based interventions and health‐promotion campaigns worldwide. Research and practical implications are highlighted and discussed.

Qualitative factors influencing breast and cervical cancer screening in women: A scoping review

Breast and cervical are top cancers for women globally, but few studies have summarised how gender norms influence screening uptake, given sexual connotations and physical exposure. These beliefs may play a central role in decision-making, and understanding them is crucial to improving screening rates and services. This review scopes international literature for gender-based qualitative factors influencing women’s screening uptake. A systematic search of peer-reviewed English articles in PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL was conducted from inception until December 2019. Articles were included if they were about breast or cervical cancer screening, had mixed or qualitative methodology, and sampled women from the general population. 72 studies spanning 34 countries were analysed. Eight studies also included healthcare providers’ views. Our narrative thematic analysis summarised primary themes extracted from each study into first-level subthemes, then synthesising second-level and third-level themes: (I) gender socialisation of women, (II) gender inequality in society, and (III) lack of empowerment to women in making screening decisions. Women tended to face sociocultural/role-based constraints, were expected to prioritise family, and keep bodily exposure to their husbands. Women showed low awareness and had fewer opportunities for health education compared to men. Male relations were often gatekeepers to financial resources needed to pay for screening tests. Screening risked community norms about women’s or husbands’ perceived embarrassing sexual behaviours. These findings suggest that interventions targeting unhelpful stigmatising beliefs about women’s cancer screening must concurrently address community general norms, familial role-based beliefs, as well as at male relations who hold the purse-strings.