Cited by 50Women's cancer prevention and managementGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Contextual factors associated with uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening: A systematic review of the literature

Plourde, Natasha, Brown, Hilary K., Vigod, Simone, Cobigo, Virginie·2016·Women & Health

Abstract

Existing research on barriers to breast and cervical cancer screening uptake has focused primarily on socio-demographic characteristics of individuals. However, contextual factors, such as service organization, as well as healthcare providers' training and practices, are more feasibly altered to increase health service use. The objective of the authors in this study was to perform a critical systematic review of the literature to identify contextual factors at the provider- and system-level that were associated with breast and cervical cancer screening uptake. Studies published from 2000 to 2013 were identified through PubMed and PsycInfo. Methodologic quality was assessed, and studies were examined for themes related to provider- and system-level factors associated with screening uptake. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Findings revealed a positive association between patients' receipt of provider recommendation and uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening. Uptake was also higher among patients of female providers. Facilities with flexible appointment times and reminders had higher mammography and Pap test uptake. Similarly, greater organizational commitment to quality and performance had higher breast and cervical cancer screening rates. Knowledge provided in this review could be used in future research to inform the development of public health policy and clinical programs to improve screening uptake.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03630242.2016.1145169

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Plourde, N., Brown, H. K., Vigod, S., & Cobigo, V.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Women’s College Hospital Research and Innovation Institute (CA)
  • Women's College Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Cobigo, Virginie
Venue
Women & Health
Published
2016-01-26
Volume
56
Issue
8
Pages
906-925
ISSN
  • 0363-0242 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0331
OpenAlex
W2252904370
Cited by
50
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
0.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Women & Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, screening uptake, contextual factors, provider recommendation, appointment reminders, organizational commitment, mammography, Pap smear, health care organization, barriers to screening
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Breast Neoplasms, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Mammography, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Vaginal Smears, Early Detection of Cancer, Papanicolaou Test

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