Cited by 96Women's cancer prevention and managementCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Interventions to improve the uptake of cervical cancer screening among lower socioeconomic groups: A systematic review

Open access
Rees, Imogen, Jones, Daniel, Chen, Hong, Macleod, Una·2018·Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide. Screening can reduce both the incidence and mortality of the disease but is often not utilized by lower socioeconomic groups. A systematic review, including studies of interventions to improve breast and cervical cancer screening uptake, up to 2006, found targeted interventions could be effective. A formal update has been conducted on the effectiveness of interventions to improve the uptake of cervical cancer screening among lower socioeconomic groups. A systematic computerized literature search was undertaken in June 2016 for relevant papers published since 2006. Data was extracted on study participants, setting, intervention and control using a predefined extraction tool and a full quality assessment was undertaken using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. This update yielded 16 studies of mixed quality, in addition to the 13 studies from the original review. The interventions were categorized into local interventions including HPV self-testing, lay health advisors, inreach, outreach and mixed, and strategies enhancing attendance within an organized program. This review has found two large, randomized controlled trials for the use of HPV self-testing to increase cervical screening uptake. Both reviews have found varying success using lay health advisors, with the majority of included papers reporting a statistically significant increase in screening uptake. HPV self-testing can improve uptake of cervical cance…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.11.019

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rees, I., Jones, D., Chen, H., & Macleod, U.
Affiliations
University of Hull (GB)
Corresponding author
Rees, Imogen
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
111
Pages
323-335
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2774162496
Cited by
92
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Hull York Medical School
  • INSPIRE programme
  • Academy of Medical Sciences
  • Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
cervical cancer screening, screening uptake, socioeconomic status, HPV self-testing, lay health advisors, organized screening programs, breast cancer screening, health interventions
MeSH terms
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Socioeconomic Factors, Healthcare Disparities, 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