Cited by 27Women's cancer prevention and managementCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchBehavioral Health and Interventions

The application of health behavior theories to promote cervical cancer screening uptake

Open access
Dsouza, Jyoshma Preema, Van den Broucke, Stephan, Pattanshetty, Sanjay, Dhoore, William·2021·Public Health Nursing

Abstract

Background: While cervical cancer is a major cause of mortality, its progress and survival rate can be improved through screening. Yet despite their wide availability, women's participation in cervical cancer screening (CCS) programs is often suboptimal, especially in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Besides demographic and organizational characteristics, screening uptake is influenced by psychological factors, most of which are included in health behavior theories. This systematic review compared different health behavior theories in terms of their capacity to explain CCS uptake and inform CCS promotion campaigns. Methods: A comprehensive search and analysis of published intervention and non‐intervention (observational) studies that applied at least one health behavior theory to CCS participation. Results: After quality screening, 48 observational and 21 intervention studies were identified that applied the Health Belief Model (HBM), Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), Transtheoretical model (TTM), Social‐ecological Model (SEM), and/or Theory of Triadic Influence (TTI) to CCS. The HBM was most frequently used to explain behavior, whereas the TPB was better at explaining screening intentions. Tailored intervention studies focusing on all theoretical constructs were most effective in modifying perceptions and increasing CCS uptake. Conclusions: Despite their inconsistent use, health behavior theories can explain CCS intentions and behavior and contribute to the development of targeted interventions to promote screening uptake.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/phn.12944

Cites

102 of 102 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dsouza, J. P., Van den Broucke, S., Pattanshetty, S., & Dhoore, W.
Affiliations
  • UCLouvain (BE)
  • Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences Université Catholique de Louvain Louvain Belgium
  • Manipal Academy of Higher Education (IN)
  • Faculty of Public Health Université Catholique de Louvain Louvain Belgium
Corresponding author
Dsouza, Jyoshma Preema
Venue
Public Health Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-07-07
Volume
38
Issue
6
Pages
1039-1079
ISSN
  • 0737-1209 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1446
OpenAlex
W3181815887
Cited by
27
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3
FWCI
0.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Health Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
cervical cancer screening, screening uptake, health behavior theory, Health Belief Model, theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, transtheoretical model, socio-ecological model, Theory of Triadic Influence, personalized interventions, screening intention, low- and middle-income countries
MeSH terms
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Health Behavior, Intention, 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