Cited by 296Women's cancer prevention and managementCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Barriers to cervical cancer screening attendance in England: a population-based survey

Open access
Waller, Jo, Bartoszek, Marta, Marlow, Laura, Wardle, Jane·2009·Journal of Medical Screening

Abstract

Objectives: To explore barriers to cervical screening attendance in a population-based sample, and to compare barriers endorsed by women who were up-to-date with screening versus those who were overdue. We also tested the hypothesis that women who were overdue for screening would be more generally disillusioned with public services, as indexed by reported voting behaviour in elections. Setting: A population-based survey of women in England. Methods: Face-to-face interviews were carried out with 580 women aged 26–64 years, and recruited using stratified random probability sampling as part of an omnibus survey. Questions assessed self-reported cervical screening attendance, barriers to screening, voting behaviour and demographic characteristics. Results: Eighty-five per cent of women were up-to-date with screening and 15% were overdue, including 2.6% who had never had a smear test. The most commonly endorsed barriers were embarrassment (29%), intending to go but not getting round to it (21%), fear of pain (14%) and worry about what the test might find (12%). Only four barriers showed significant independent associations with screening status: difficulty making an appointment, not getting round to going, not being sexually active and not trusting the test. We found support for our hypothesis that women who do not attend for screening are less likely to vote in elections, even when controlling for barrier endorsement and demographic factors. Conclusions: Practical barriers were more predictive of screening uptake than emotional factors such as embarrassment. This has clear implications for service provision and future interventions to increase uptake. The association between voting behaviour and screening uptake lends support to the hypothesis that falling screening coverage may be indicative of a broader phenomenon of disillusionment, and further research in this area is warranted.

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 · 10.1258/jms.2009.009073

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • First-time attendees and young women often face challenges in attending CC screening, such as difficulties making appointments, time constraints and perceived low priority.

    “first-time attendees and young women often face challenges in attending CC screening, such as difficulties making appointments, time constraints and perceived low priority.13,14”

    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 [13]

    The Endorsement of barriers section reports that younger women more often endorsed difficulty arranging a convenient appointment and intending to attend but not getting round to it. The study did not separately establish these barriers for first-time attendees, and it did not directly measure perceived low priority; its discussion of work and childcare commitments offers context for time constraints. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Sutton S, Rutherford C. Sociodemographic and attitudinal correlates of cervical screening uptake in a national sample of women in Britain. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:2460 -5
  2. 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
  3. Marlow LAV, Waller J, Wardle J. Sociodemographic predictors of HPV testing and vaccination acceptability: results from a population-representative sample of British women. J Med Screen 2008;15:91 -6
  4. Oscarsson MG, Wijma BE. Nonattendance in a cervical cancer screening program -what happens if women's requirements are met? Health Care Women Int 2008;29:183 -97
  5. Olowokure B, Caswell M, Duggal HV. What women want: convenient appointment times for cervical screening tests. Eur J Cancer Care 2006;15:489 -92
  6. Neilson A, Jones RK. Women's lay knowledge of cervical cancer cervical screening: accounting for non-attendance at cervical screening clinics. J Adv Nurs 1998;28:571 -5
  7. Orbell S. Cognition and affect after cervical screening: the role of previous test outcome and personal obligation in future uptake expectations. Soc Sci Med 1996;43:1237 -43
  8. Blomberg K, Ternestedt BM, Tornberg S, Tishelman C. How do women who choose not to participate in population-based cervical cancer screening reason about their decision? Psychooncology 2008;17:561 -9 10
  9. Oscarsson MG, Wijma BE, Benzein EG. 'I do not need to . . . I do not want to . . . I do not give it priority' -why women choose not to attend cervical cancer screening. Health Expect 2008;11:26 -34 11
  10. Lancuck L, Patnick J, Vessey M. A cohort effect in cervical screening coverage?. J Med Screen 2008;15:27 -9 12
  11. Oscarsson MG, Benzein EG, Wijma BE. Reasons for non-attendance at cervical screening as reported by non-attendees in Sweden. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2008;29:23 -31
  12. Fylan F. Screening for cervical cancer: a review of women's attitudes, knowledge, and behaviour. Br J Gen Pract 1998;48:1509 -14 14
  13. Forss A, Tishelman C, Widmark C, Lundgren E, Sachs L, Tornberg S. 'I got a letter -'a qualitative study of women's reasoning about attendance in a cervical cancer screening programme in urban Sweden. Psychooncology 2001;10:76 -87
  14. McKie L. Women's views of the cervical smear test: implications for nursing practice -women who have not had a smear test. J Adv Nurs 1993;18:972 -9
  15. Bowman JA, Sanson-Fisher R, Redman S. The accuracy of self-reported Pap smear utilisation. Soc Sci Med 1997;44:969 -76
  16. Sheeran P, Orbell S. Using implementation intentions to increase attendance for cervical cancer screening. Health Psychol 2000;19:283 -9

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waller, J., Bartoszek, M., Marlow, L., & Wardle, J.
Affiliations
Cancer Research UK (GB)
Venue
Journal of Medical Screening
Published
2009-12
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
199-204
ISSN
  • 0969-1413 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-5793
OpenAlex
W2101508962
Cited by
296
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 12
FWCI
8.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Screening (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Cancer Research UK
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, barriers to screening, smear test, overdue screening, embarrassment, fear of pain, voting behavior, sexual activity, women's health
MeSH terms
Adult, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Data Collection, England, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Young Adult

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