Cited by 66Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningWomen's cancer prevention and managementColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection

Factors promoting breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings participation: A systematic review

Open access
Vallone, Federica, Lemmo, Daniela, Martino, Maria Luisa, Donizzetti, Anna Rosa, Freda, Maria Francesca, Palumbo, Francesco, Lorenzo, Elvira, D’Argenzio, Angelo +1 more·2022·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

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 implication s are highlighted and discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.5997

Cites

119 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Awareness/knowledge can be viewed as a requisite for attendance and as central in influencing other factors.

    “Awareness/knowledge can be viewed as a requisite for attendance [10] and as central in influencing other factors.”

    From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Results section (“Knowledge and awareness”; page unavailable) says high knowledge and awareness promote cancer-screening attendance, mainly among first-time attenders. It does not establish that knowledge or awareness is a requisite for attendance. The citation is attached to that requisite claim, not to the sentence’s separate assertion about influencing other factors. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Fatalism is an emotional barrier.

    “Emotional barriers include fear of cancer, screening results and treatment [8,9,15] and fatalism [10,24].”

    From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    In Results, under “Individual characteristics” (page unavailable), the review says people with fatalism perceive greater barriers to screening and are less likely to follow health recommendations. It does not classify fatalism as an emotional barrier; its separate “Emotions” section names fear, shame, embarrassment and discomfort instead. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • More flexible access, such as flexible scheduling or options for screening facilities, can increase attendance.

    “Long wait times can be a barrier [22,26], whereas more flexible access, e.g., flexible scheduling or options for screening facilities can increase attendance [10].”

    From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Discussion (Clinical implications; page unavailable) recommends more flexible access to screening, and the Results (System barriers; page unavailable) describe measures that facilitate access. The review does not specifically identify flexible scheduling or a choice of screening facilities as measures that increase attendance; its scheduling example is a second fixed-date appointment. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Social supports facilitate self-efficacy, which in turn is associated with screening attendance.

    “Such supports are important because they facilitate self-efficacy, which in turn is associated with screening attendance [7,10,11,14].”

    From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Results (Research question one; page not provided) identify high perceived self-efficacy as a factor promoting screening adherence and report that talking with family and friends can promote screening. The review does not say that social support facilitates self-efficacy, so it does not establish the claimed link between them. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In systematic reviews, perceived control in personal health choices and high self-efficacy to attend screening are positively associated with screening.

    “In systematic reviews, perceived control in personal health choices and high self-efficacy to attend screening have been positively associated with screening [7,10,11,14].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vallone, F., Lemmo, D., Martino, M. L., Donizzetti, A. R., Freda, M. F., Palumbo, F., Lorenzo, E., D’Argenzio, A., & Caso, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Naples Federico II (IT)
  • Regione Campania (IT)
Corresponding author
Caso, Daniela
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-07-12
Volume
31
Issue
9
Pages
1435-1447
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W4284883114
Cited by
65
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Keywords
cancer screening participation, breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, barriers to screening, facilitators of screening, patient-provider relationship, health system barriers, health promotion interventions, superdiversity
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Colorectal Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review