IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i3-4p393-415.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Education, income and occupation and their influence on the uptake of cervical cancer prevention strategies: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica Murfin
  • Fiona Irvine
  • Ronnie Meechan‐Rogers
  • Amelia Swift

Abstract

Aims To report a systematic review of the literature exploring how education, income and occupation influence the uptake of cervical screening and HPV vaccination among eligible women in developed countries, including the United Kingdom, United States, Spain, Germany and Norway. Background Cervical cancer remains a highly prevalent disease despite it being largely preventable through cervical screening and HPV vaccination. Incidence and mortality of cervical cancer are unequally distributed among socioeconomic groups, warranting research into how individual socioeconomic factors contribute to this unbalanced uptake of prevention strategies. Design Systematic review and narrative synthesis. Methods The PRISMA guidelines (PLoS Medicine, 6, 2009, e1000097) guided the selection of papers. MEDLINE, CINHAL, PsychINFO, Science Citation Index and HMIC were searched. Ten articles were suitable. Key findings were then extracted, and a narrative synthesis was completed, using suitable guidance and the AXIS tool. Results Obtaining high school or college education is associated with uptake of both cervical screening and HPV vaccination. Total household income and income in respect of the countries' poverty line was measured less frequently than education, but associated with screening and vaccination in some studies. Occupation was infrequently measured in comparison to education and income, limiting conclusions of its association to uptake. Conclusion Education and income have an association with uptake of cervical screening and HPV vaccination among women. However, evidence is insufficient to affirm a relationship between occupation and uptake of screening and vaccination. Further research would be advised to strengthen these findings. Relevance to clinical practice Interventions to promote cervical cancer prevention strategies should be targeted at women and girls with lower education levels and lower income. However, differences are displayed in the relationships between the individual socioeconomic factors and uptake of preventative strategies between countries and populations and so they should be considered separately. Nurses play a considerable role in people's perceptions and experiences of cervical screening and HPV vaccination. The review findings offer new insight that can inform future policy and nursing practice on targeting interventions to promote uptake among women who are underusing cervical cancer prevention programmes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica Murfin & Fiona Irvine & Ronnie Meechan‐Rogers & Amelia Swift, 2020. "Education, income and occupation and their influence on the uptake of cervical cancer prevention strategies: A systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3-4), pages 393-415, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:3-4:p:393-415
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15094
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15094
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15094?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ali Moghtaderi & Scott Adams, 2016. "The Role of Physician Recommendations and Public Policy in Human Papillomavirus Vaccinations," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 349-359, June.
    2. Evangelos Kontopantelis & David A Springate & David Reeves, 2013. "A Re-Analysis of the Cochrane Library Data: The Dangers of Unobserved Heterogeneity in Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-14, July.
    3. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Quintal, Carlota & Antunes, Micaela, 2022. "Mirror, mirror on the wall, when are inequalities higher, after all? Analysis of breast and cervical cancer screening in 30 European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 312(C).

    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. Filipe Manuel Clemente & Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo & José Afonso & Hugo Sarmento & Thomas Rosemann & Beat Knechtle, 2021. "A Meta-Analytical Comparison of the Effects of Small-Sided Games vs. Running-Based High-Intensity Interval Training on Soccer Players’ Repeated-Sprint Ability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-11, March.
    2. Min Wen & Bo Zhou & Yun-Hua Chen & Zhao-Lei Ma & Yun Gou & Chun-Lin Zhang & Wen-Feng Yu & Ling Jiao, 2017. "Serum uric acid levels in patients with Parkinson’s disease: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-13, March.
    3. Diandian Li & Yi Liu & Bo Wang, 2020. "Single versus bilateral lung transplantation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-12, May.
    4. Saiqun Li & Liangping Liu & Wei Wang & Ting Huang & Xingwu Zhong & Jin Yuan & Lingyi Liang, 2017. "Efficacy and safety of Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-21, December.
    5. Lara Carneiro & José Afonso & Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo & Eugenia Murawska-Ciałowciz & Adilson Marques & Filipe Manuel Clemente, 2020. "The Effects of Exclusively Resistance Training-Based Supervised Programs in People with Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-22, September.
    6. Xian Zhang & Yi Lin & Xiaoning Xie & Meiya Shen & Guoping Huang & Yunmei Yang, 2018. "Is acne in adolescence associated with prostate cancer risk? Evidence from a meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-10, November.
    7. Xuelong Zhou & Chenjing Zhang & Min Wang & LiNa Yu & M Yan, 2015. "Dezocine for Preventing Postoperative Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, August.
    8. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    9. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    10. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    11. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    12. Maryono, Maryono & Killoes, Aditya Marendra & Adhikari, Rajendra & Abdul Aziz, Ammar, 2024. "Agriculture development through multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    13. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    14. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    15. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    16. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    18. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    19. Ding Zhu & Mindan Wu & Yuan Cao & Shihua Lin & Nanxia Xuan & Chen Zhu & Wen Li & Huahao Shen, 2018. "Heated humidification did not improve compliance of positive airway pressure and subjective daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:3-4:p:393-415. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.