Barriers to cervical screening among older women from hard-to-reach groups: a qualitative study in England
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical screening attendance among 50-64 year-olds is suboptimal. Understanding attitudes to screening and reasons for non-attendance in older women will help to identify the content of interventions for this age group. This study aimed to explore barriers to cervical screening among women aged 50-64 years from hard-to-reach groups whose perspectives are often absent from research on cervical screening but are critical to developing appropriate interventions to increase engagement with the screening offer. METHODS: Qualitative methodology was used. Six focus groups were carried out with women aged 50-64 years from lower socio-economic and ethnic minority backgrounds (n = 38). Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated where necessary. Data were analysed using the Framework Approach, a type of thematic analysis. RESULTS: All women had heard of cervical screening, but many felt they had poor knowledge. Women's reasons for non-attendance were wide-ranging and included discomfort and embarrassment, negative perceptions of health professionals, worry and trust in the results, concern about the procedure, idiosyncratic beliefs, and extreme negative experiences. Some women reported not receiving letters or prompts to be screened. CONCLUSIONS: Information designed specifically for older women should ensure they understand the purpose of screening and its relevance to them. Emphasising changes to the programme that have made the experience less uncomfortable, and improved sample taker awareness of how women feel, may help to allay concerns related to previous negative experiences.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Negative experiences with cervical cancer screening would be limited at this age compared to older individuals.
“Moreover, as negative experiences with CC screening would be limited at this age, compared to older individuals, 140”
From Identifying the key barriers, facilitators and factors associated with cervical cancer screening attendance in young women: A systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [140]
The Results (Thematic structure; page not provided) report that older women described previous bad or painful screening experiences, and the Discussion says these experiences often shaped decisions not to attend again. The paper does not compare their experiences with those of younger people or establish that negative experiences would be limited at the younger age in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · see citing works
S., N. L. (2017) · doi:10.1177/1609406917733847 · Cited by 14,051 · see citing works
Kellen, E., Benoy, I., Vanden Broeck, D., Martens, P., Bogers, J., Haelens, A., & Van Limbergen, E. (2018) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.31391 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- [3]Castanon A Landy R Pesola F Windridge P Sasieni P Prediction of cervical cancer incidence in England, UK, up to 2040, under four scenarios: a modelling study Lancet Public Health 2018 3 1 e34 e43 10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30222-0 29307386 PMC5765529 · DOI
- [4]Castanon A Landy R Cuzick J Sasieni P Cervical screening at age 50-64 years and the risk of cervical cancer at age 65 years and older: population-based case control study PLoS Med 2014 11 1 e1001585 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001585 24453946 PMC3891624 · DOI
- [6]Sherman SM Castanon A Moss E Redman CW Cervical cancer is not just a young woman's disease BMJ 2015 350 h2729 10.1136/bmj.h2729 26077735 · DOI
- [7]Hope KA Moss E Redman CWE Sherman SM Psycho-social influences upon older women's decision to attend cervical screening: a review of current evidence Prev Med 2017 101 60 66 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.002 28502577 · DOI
- [9]Freeman M, Waller J, Sasieni P, Lim AW, Marlow LA. Acceptability of non-speculum clinician sampling for cervical screening in older women: a qualitative study. J Med Screen. 2018;25(4):205–210. PMC6262594 29439604
- [10]Waller J Jackowska M Marlow L Wardle J Exploring age differences in reasons for nonattendance for cervical screening: a qualitative study BJOG 2012 119 1 26 32 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03030.x 21668764 · DOI
- [11]Marlow LAV Chorley AJ Haddrell J Ferrer R Waller J Understanding the heterogeneity of cervical cancer screening non-participants: data from a national sample of British women Eur J Cancer 2017 80 30 38 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.04.017 28535495 PMC5489076 · DOI
- [12]Moser K Patnick J Beral V Inequalities in reported use of breast and cervical screening in Great Britain: analysis of cross sectional survey data BMJ 2009 338 b2025 10.1136/bmj.b2025 19531549 PMC2697310 · DOI
- [13]Massat NJ Douglas E Waller J Wardle J Duffy SW Variation in cervical and breast cancer screening coverage in England: a cross-sectional analysis to characterise districts with atypical behaviour BMJ Open 2015 5 7 e007735 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007735 PMC4521532 26209119 · DOI
- [14]Naish J Brown J Denton B Intercultural consultations: investigation of factors that deter non-English speaking women from attending their general practitioners for cervical screening BMJ 1994 309 6962 1126 1128 7987106 PMC2541951
- [15]Marlow LA Waller J Wardle J Barriers to cervical cancer screening among ethnic minority women: a qualitative study J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2015 41 4 248 254 10.1136/jfprhc-2014-101082 25583124 PMC4621371 · DOI
- [16]Abdullahi A Copping J Kessel A Luck M Bonell C Cervical screening: perceptions and barriers to uptake among Somali women in Camden Public Health 2009 123 10 680 685 10.1016/j.puhe.2009.09.011 19863980 · DOI
- [18]Morse JM Determining sample size Qual Health Res 2000 10 1 3 5 10.1177/104973200129118183 · DOI
- [19]Ritchie JL Qualitative Research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers 2003 London SAGE
- [22]Low EL Simon AE Lyons J Romney-Alexander D Waller J What do British women know about cervical cancer symptoms and risk factors? Eur J Cancer 2012 48 16 3001 3008 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.05.004 22683170 · DOI
- [23]Box V Cervical screening: the knowledge and opinions of black and minority ethnic women and of health advocates in East London Health Educ J 1998 57 1 3 15 10.1177/001789699805700102 · DOI
- [24]Marlow LA Wardle J Waller J Understanding cervical screening non-attendance among ethnic minority women in England Br J Cancer 2015 113 5 833 839 10.1038/bjc.2015.248 26171938 PMC4559824 · DOI
- [25]Chorley AJ Marlow LA Forster AS Haddrell JB Waller J Experiences of cervical screening and barriers to participation in the context of an organised programme: a systematic review and thematic synthesis Psychooncology 2016 26 2 161 172 10.1002/pon.4126 27072589 PMC5324630 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shpendi, S., Norman, P., Gibson-Miller, J., & Webster, R. (2025) · Women's Health · doi:10.1177/17455057251324309 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Marlow, L., McBride, E., Varnes, L., & Waller, J.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Marlow, Laura
- Venue
- BMC Women's Health
- Published
- 2019-02-26
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 38-38
- ISSN
- 1472-6874 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6390581
- OpenAlex
- W2929905027
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 6.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Women s Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Jo's Cervical Cancer 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, older women, hard-to-reach populations, barriers to screening, non-attendance, ethnic minority women, low socioeconomic status, screening knowledge, screening experience, trust in healthcare providers, screening reminders
- MeSH terms
- Embarrassment, Aged, Attitude of Health Personnel, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, England, Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Middle Aged, Perception, Risk Factors, Focus Groups, Trust, Qualitative Research, 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