Variation in cervical cancer screening preferences among medically underserved individuals in the United States: A systematic review

9Citations
Citations of this article
45Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Underutilization of effective screening is one driver of disparities in cervical cancer incidence and mortality. Consideration of patient preferences could help to improve screening rates in populations facing substantial barriers to preventive care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on cervical cancer screening preferences among medically underserved patients in the United States. We searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) for articles published through February 2019 (Prospero ID: CRD42019125431). Among the 43 articles included, 23 reported screening modality preferences, 11 reported preferences related to provider demographics and attributes, six reported screening scheduling and results delivery preferences, and nine reported preferences related to health education and communication. This review demonstrates the wide variety of medically underserved patient preferences related to cervical cancer screening. It also draws attention to two key preference trends that emerged despite heterogeneity in study design, populations, and preference assessment. Consistent preferences for human papillomavirus self-testing over traditional Pap testing highlight a key potential mechanism for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake among medically underserved populations. In addition, preferences for gender- and language-concordant providers underscore the need for continued efforts toward expanding diversity among medical professionals.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Biddell, C. B., O’Leary, M. C., Wheeler, S. B., & Spees, L. P. (2020). Variation in cervical cancer screening preferences among medically underserved individuals in the United States: A systematic review. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, 29(8), 1535–1548. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0306

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free