Dataset Information

Facilitators and barriers for the delivery and uptake of cervical cancer screening in Indonesia: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cervical cancer (CC) is the second most common female cancer. In Indonesia, national CC screening coverage is low at 12%, highlighting the need to investigate facilitators and barriers to screening.

Objective

This review synthesises research on facilitators and barriers to the delivery and uptake of CC screening; analyses them in terms of supply- and demand-side factors and their interconnectedness; and proposes recommendations for further research.

Methods

Medline Ovid, CINAHL, Global Health, Neliti, SINTA and Google Scholar were searched, applying a search string with keywords relevant to screening, CC and Indonesia. In total 34 records were included, all were publications on CC screening in Indonesia (2000-2020) in English or Indonesian. Records were analysed to identify findings relevant to the categories of barriers and facilitators, supply-and demand-side factors.

Results

Demand-side facilitators identified included: husband, family or social/peer support (14 studies); information availability, knowledge and awareness (12 studies); positive attitudes and strong perception of screening benefit and the seriousness of CC (12 studies); higher education and socioeconomic status (11 studies); having health insurance; and short distance to screening services (4 studies). Evidence on supply-side was limited. Supply-side facilitators included counselling and support (6 studies), and ease of access (6 studies). Demand-side barriers identified focused on: lack of knowledge/awareness and lack of confidence in screening (14 studies); fear, fatalism and shame (10 studies); time and transportation constraints (8 studies); and lack of husband approval and support (6 studies). Supply-side barriers included: lack of skilled screening providers (3 studies); lack of advocacy and health promotion (3 studies); resource constraints (3 studies); and lack of supervision and support for health care providers (3 studies).

Conclusions

Facilitators and barriers were mirrored in the supply- and demand-side findings. The geographical scope and population diversity of existing research is limited and further supply-side research is urgently needed.

SUBMITTER: Robbers GML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8491705 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, COVID-19 vaccines have proven to be instrumental for promoting population health by reducing illness from SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine certificates emerged as a potentially promising solution for encouraging vaccination and facilitating the safe reopening of society, however, they were controversial due to criticisms of infringing upon individual rights. While there is extensive literature describing the ethical, legal, and public health implications of vaccine certificates, there is currently a gap in knowledge about the association of vaccine certificates on vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic and barriers and facilitators to their use.ObjectivesThe objectives of this scoping review are to (i) describe the existing literature on the association of vaccine certificates on the rates of COVID-19 vaccine uptake across several countries and (ii) describe the intrinsic and extrinsic barriers or facilitators that moderate this relationship.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review based on PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRSIMA-ScR) guidelines. We searched three bibliographic databases (APA PsychInfo, Embase Classic + Embase, OVID-Medline) and preprint severs during the first week of July 2023. Three reviewers independently screened the studies based on pre-specified eligibility criteria and performed quality assessments of the primary literature and data extraction.ResultsSixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. 14 or these were surveys and 2 were modelling studies. The majority documented that vaccine certificates were significantly associated with increased rates of COVID-19 vaccine uptake (n = 12), motivated by factors such as travel/employer requirements, influence from the government/peers, and trust in the safety, efficacy, and science behind COVID-19 vaccines. Three studies had non-significant or mixed findings. Only one study found a significant decrease in COVID-19 vaccine uptake, motivated by pervasive distrust in the QR code-based system of digital vaccine certificates in Russia. Quality of survey studies was generally high.ConclusionOur findings provide insights into the existing literature on vaccine certificates association with vaccine uptake in several different jurisdictions and barriers and facilitators to their uptake. This information can be used to guide future examinations of the implementation of vaccine certificates and more effective implementations.

Project description:Digital health technology (DHT) has the potential to revolutionize healthcare delivery but its uptake has been low in clinical and research settings. The factors that contribute to the limited adoption of DHT, particularly in cardiovascular settings, are unclear. The objective of this review was to determine the barriers and facilitators of DHT uptake from the perspective of patients, clinicians, and researchers. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for studies published from inception to May 2020 that reported barriers and/or facilitators of DHT adoption in cardiovascular care. We extracted data on study design, setting, cardiovascular condition, and type of DHT. We conducted a thematic analysis to identify barriers and facilitators of DHT uptake. The search identified 3075 unique studies, of which 29 studies met eligibility criteria. Studies employed: qualitative methods (n = 13), which included interviews and focus groups; quantitative methods (n = 5), which included surveys; or a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods (n = 11). Twenty-five studies reported patient-level barriers, most common of which were difficult-to-use technology (n=7) and a poor internet connection (n=7). Six studies reported clinician-level barriers, which included increased workload (n=4) and a lack of integration with electronic medical records (n=3).Twenty-four studies reported patient-level facilitators, which included improved communication with clinicians (n=10) and personalized technology (n=6). Four studies reported clinician-level facilitators, which included approval and organizational support from cardiology departments and/or hospitals (n=3) and technologies that improved efficiency (n=3). No studies reported researcher-level barriers or facilitators. In summary, internet access, user-friendliness, organizational support, workflow efficiency, and data integration were reported as important factors in the uptake of DHT by patients and clinicians. These factors can be considered when selecting and implementing DHTs in cardiovascular clinical settings.