IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i3p2200-d1047110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adherence to Cervical Cancer Screening Programs in Migrant Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Isabella Rosato

    (Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardio-Thoraco-Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padua, 35131 Padua, Italy)

  • Teresa Dalla Zuanna

    (Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardio-Thoraco-Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padua, 35131 Padua, Italy)

  • Valentina Tricarico

    (Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardio-Thoraco-Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padua, 35131 Padua, Italy)

  • Claudio Barbiellini Amidei

    (Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardio-Thoraco-Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padua, 35131 Padua, Italy
    Epidemiological Department, Azienda Zero, Veneto Region, 35131 Padua, Italy)

  • Cristina Canova

    (Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardio-Thoraco-Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padua, 35131 Padua, Italy)

Abstract

Organized cervical cancer screening programs to promote the early identification of precancerous lesions have proven to be effective in decreasing the burden associated with cervical cancer, but knowledge regarding screening adherence among migrant women compared to that of native women has not been summarized. A systematic search of the literature on PubMed, Scopus and Embase led to the identification of 772 papers that were published up to July 2022 and reported population-based data regarding adherence to cervical screening. The screening participation rates among migrant women, compared to native women, were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. A total of 18 papers were included in the review, with most of them being conducted in Europe (83.3%). Overall, migrants showed a significantly lower participation rate compared to native women (OR for screening adherence: 0.54, 95% CI = 0.42–0.70). This discrepancy was especially evident for migrant women from North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.35–0.63, and OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.24–0.49, respectively). The results of this systematic review emphasize the importance of increasing cervical cancer screening adherence among migrant women. A significant heterogeneity in screening adherence was observed based on the country of origin. Interventions aimed at reducing the disparities in screening participation should specifically consider how to improve the recruitment of migrant women.

Suggested Citation

  • Isabella Rosato & Teresa Dalla Zuanna & Valentina Tricarico & Claudio Barbiellini Amidei & Cristina Canova, 2023. "Adherence to Cervical Cancer Screening Programs in Migrant Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:3:p:2200-:d:1047110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/3/2200/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/3/2200/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gallo, Federica & Caprioglio, Adele & Castagno, Roberta & Ronco, Guglielmo & Segnan, Nereo & Giordano, Livia, 2017. "Inequalities in cervical cancer screening utilisation and results: A comparison between Italian natives and immigrants from disadvantaged countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(10), pages 1072-1078.
    2. Esther E. Idehen & Anni Virtanen & Eero Lilja & Tomi-Pekka Tuomainen & Tellervo Korhonen & Päivikki Koponen, 2020. "Cervical Cancer Screening Participation among Women of Russian, Somali, and Kurdish Origin Compared with the General Finnish Population: A Register-Based Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-16, October.
    3. Walsh, Brendan & Silles, Mary & O'Neill, Ciarán, 2011. "The importance of socio-economic variables in cancer screening participation: A comparison between population-based and opportunistic screening in the EU-15," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 269-276, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Folkert Groot & Stefano Capri & Jean-Claude Castanier & David Cunningham & Bruno Flamion & Mathias Flume & Harald Herholz & Lars-Åke Levin & Oriol Solà-Morales & Christoph J. Rupprecht & Natalie Shale, 2017. "Ethical Hurdles in the Prioritization of Oncology Care," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 119-126, April.
    2. Gallo, Federica & Caprioglio, Adele & Castagno, Roberta & Ronco, Guglielmo & Segnan, Nereo & Giordano, Livia, 2017. "Inequalities in cervical cancer screening utilisation and results: A comparison between Italian natives and immigrants from disadvantaged countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(10), pages 1072-1078.
    3. Missinne, Sarah & Bracke, Piet, 2015. "A cross-national comparative study on the influence of individual life course factors on mammography screening," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(6), pages 709-719.
    4. Jolidon, Vladimir, 2022. "Gender inequality and mammography screening: Does living with a partner improve women's mammography uptake?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    5. Burns, Richeal & Walsh, Brendan & O’Neill, Stephen & O’Neill, Ciaran, 2012. "An examination of variations in the uptake of prostate cancer screening within and between the countries of the EU-27," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 268-276.
    6. Barbara Willems & Piet Bracke, 2018. "The education gradient in cancer screening participation: a consistent phenomenon across Europe?," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 63(1), pages 93-103, January.
    7. Esther E. Idehen & Anna-Maija Pietilä & Mari Kangasniemi, 2020. "Barriers and Facilitators to Cervical Screening among Migrant Women of African Origin: A Qualitative Study in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-20, October.
    8. Willems, Barbara & Bracke, Piet, 2018. "Participants, Physicians or Programmes: Participants’ educational level and initiative in cancer screening," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(4), pages 422-430.
    9. Carney, Patricia & O'Neill, Stephen & O'Neill, Ciaran, 2013. "Determinants of breast cancer screening uptake in women, evidence from the British Household Panel Survey," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 108-114.
    10. Ming-Jye Wang & Yi-Ting Lo, 2022. "Strategies for Improving the Utilization of Preventive Care Services: Application of Importance–Performance Gap Analysis Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-11, October.
    11. Katja Çilenti & Shadia Rask & Marko Elovainio & Eero Lilja & Hannamaria Kuusio & Seppo Koskinen & Päivikki Koponen & Anu E. Castaneda, 2021. "Use of Health Services and Unmet Need among Adults of Russian, Somali, and Kurdish Origin in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-21, February.
    12. Miao Zhang & Wenshuang Wei & Qinmei Li & Xinguang Chen & Min Zhang & Dan Zuo & Qing Liu, 2021. "Determinants of Intention to Participate in Breast Cancer Screening among Urban Chinese Women: An Application of the Protection Motivation Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-12, October.
    13. Clara Dugord & Carine Franc, 2022. "Trajectories and individual determinants of regular cancer screening use over a long period based on data from the French E3N cohort," Post-Print hal-04385507, HAL.
    14. Esther E. Idehen & Anni Virtanen & Eero Lilja & Tomi-Pekka Tuomainen & Tellervo Korhonen & Päivikki Koponen, 2020. "Cervical Cancer Screening Participation among Women of Russian, Somali, and Kurdish Origin Compared with the General Finnish Population: A Register-Based Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Patrícia Marques & Ana Gama & Mário Santos & Bruno Heleno & Heleen Vermandere & Sónia Dias, 2021. "Understanding Cervical Cancer Screening Barriers among Migrant Women: A Qualitative Study with Healthcare and Community Workers in Portugal," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-13, July.
    16. Priaulx, Jennifer & de Koning, Harry J. & de Kok, Inge M.C.M. & Széles, György & McKee, Martin, 2018. "Identifying the barriers to effective breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in thirty one European countries using the Barriers to Effective Screening Tool (BEST)," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(11), pages 1190-1197.
    17. Dugord, Clara & Franc, Carine, 2022. "Trajectories and individual determinants of regular cancer screening use over a long period based on data from the French E3N cohort," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    18. Hale Koç & Owen O’Donnell & Tom Van Ourti, 2018. "What Explains Education Disparities in Screening Mammography in the United States? A Comparison with The Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-13, September.
    19. Shen, Cheng-Ting & Chen, Fang-Ming & Hsieh, Hui-Min, 2020. "Effect of a national population-based breast cancer screening policy on participation in mammography and stage at breast cancer diagnosis in Taiwan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(4), pages 478-485.
    20. Bussière, Clémence & Le Vaillant, Marc & Pelletier-Fleury, Nathalie, 2015. "Screening for cervical cancer: What are the determinants among adults with disabilities living in institutions? Findings from a National Survey in France," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(6), pages 794-801.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:3:p:2200-:d:1047110. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.