A Scoping Review of Factors Affecting Women of Childbearing Age in the Early Detection of Cervical Cancer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/9n1qd965Keywords:
Factors, early detection of cervical cancer, women of childbearing age (WCA).Abstract
Cervical cancer is a malignant disease, and a very significant cause of death in women, which is predominantly instigated by the human papilloma virus (HPV) infection. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported an incidence rate of 14 per 100,000 sufferers and 6.8 per 100,000 deaths worldwide. The high mortality rate is possibly reduced through a comprehensive approach, including prevention, early diagnosis, effective screening and participation in the treatment of cervical cancer early detection programs. Furthermore, early detection is known to be influenced by individual, structural and social factors. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to determine the factors that influence early detection of cervical cancer in fertile women. The method used consists of five stages, encompassing the identification of scoping review questions, with the PEOS framework, distinguishing relevant studies using inclusion and exclusion criteria, through databases (PubMed, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Wiley) and grey literature, article selection using PRISMA flow charts and critical appraisal involves The Joanna Bringgs Institute (JBI), mapping data, compiling, summarizing and result reporting. Furthermore, the seven selected literature fall into the grade A category, and then three themes emerged as a result of scoping review. These include individual factors (knowledge, attitudes, behavior, psychological), factors based on the facility providers (costs, health workers), and social influences (family support, friends, culture, religion). Conclusion: There are 3 factors assumed to inspire WCA to perform cervical cancer screening, comprising of individual, structural and social factors.
Downloads
References
[1] B. Jerome-D’Emilia, P. Suplee, and D. Kushary, “A 10-Year Evaluation of New Jersey’s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: Comparison of Stage at Diagnosis in Enrollees and Nonenrollees”, J. Women’s Heal., vol. 29, no. 2, (2020), pp. 230–236.
[2] R. Caspi, E. Schejter, and A. Groutz, “Screening for Cervical Cancer Among Low-Risk Populations: Orthodox Jewish Women as a Model”, J. Women’s Heal., vol. 25, no. 7, (2016), pp. 747–751.
[3] H. K. Chang et al., “Factors associated with participation in cervical cancer screening among young Koreans: A nationwide cross-sectional study”, BMJ Open, vol. 7, no. 4, (2017), pp. 1-10.
[4] C. Binka, S. H. Nyarko, K. Awusabo-Asare, and D. T. Doku, “Barriers to the Uptake of Cervical Cancer Screening and Treatment among Rural Women in Ghana”, Biomed. Res. Int., vol. 2019, (2019), pp. 1-8.
[5] A. Kissal and A. Beser PhD, “Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators of Cervical Cancer Early Detection Behaviors among Elderly Women”, Int. J. Caring Sci., vol. 7, no. 1, (2014), pp. 157–168.
[6] Y. L. Jayasinghe et al., “The Association Between Unwanted Sexual Experiences and Early-Onset Cervical Cancer and Precancer by Age 25: A Case-Control Study”, J. Women’s Heal., vol. 26, no. 7, (2017), pp. 774–787.
[7] F. L. Wong and J. W. Miller, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: Increasing Access to Screening”, J. Women’s Heal., vol. 28, no. 4, (2019), pp. 427–431.
[8] H. Arksey and L. O’Malley, “Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework”, Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. Theory Pract., vol. 8, no. 1, (2005), pp. 19–32.
[9] D. Levac, H. Colquhoun, and K. K. O’Brien, “Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology”, Implement. Sci., vol. 5, no. 1, (2010), pp. 1-9.
[10] C. Kwok, K. White, and J. K. Roydhouse, “Chinese-Australian Women’s Knowledge, Facilitators and Barriers Related to Cervical Cancer Screening: A Qualitative Study”, J. Immigr. Minor. Heal., vol. 13, no. 6, (2011), pp. 1076–1083.
[11] F. I. Modibbo et al., “Qualitative study of barriers to cervical cancer screening among Nigerian women”, BMJ Open, vol. 6, no. 1, (2016), pp. 1-13.
[12] N. Ali et al., “Barriers to uptake among high-risk individuals declining participation in lung cancer screening: A mixed methods analysis of the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial”, BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 7, (2015), pp. 1-10.
[13] M. Akinlotan, J. N. Bolin, J. Helduser, C. Ojinnaka, A. Lichorad, and D. Mcclellan, “Cervical Cancer Screening Barriers and Risk Factor Knowledge Among Uninsured Women”, J. Community Health, vol. 42, no. 4, (2017),
pp. 770–778.
[14] A. Gottschlich et al., “Barriers to cervical cancer screening and acceptability of HPV self-testing: A cross-sectional comparison between ethnic groups in Southern Thailand”, BMJ Open, vol. 9, no. 11, (2019), pp. 1-10.
[15] H. Arksey and L. O’Malley, "Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework", International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, vol. 8, no. 1, (2005), pp. 19–32.
[16] M. Akinlotan, J. N. Bolin, J. Helduser, C. Ojinnaka, A. Lichorad, and D. McClellan, “Cervical Cancer Screening Barriers and Risk Factor Knowledge Among Uninsured Women”, Journal of Community Health, vol. 42, no. 4, (2017), pp. 770–778.
[17] A. B. Bansal, A. P. Pakhare, N. Kapoor, R. Mehrotra, and A. M. Kokane, "Knowledge, attitude, and practices related to cervical cancer among adult women: A hospital-based cross-sectional study", J. Nat. Sci. Res. Biochem. Med., 6(2), (2015), 324-328.
[18] T. Al-Muammar, M. N. Al-Ahdal, A. Hassan, G. Kessie, D. D. Cruz, and G. E. Mohamed, "Human papilloma virus-16/18 cervical infection among women attending a family medical clinic in Riyadh", Ann. Saudi. Med., 27(1), (2007), 1-5.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
