Contextual factors associated with uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening: A systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing research on barriers to breast and cervical cancer screening uptake has focused primarily on socio-demographic characteristics of individuals. However, contextual factors, such as service organization, as well as healthcare providers' training and practices, are more feasibly altered to increase health service use. The objective of the authors in this study was to perform a critical systematic review of the literature to identify contextual factors at the provider- and system-level that were associated with breast and cervical cancer screening uptake. Studies published from 2000 to 2013 were identified through PubMed and PsycInfo. Methodologic quality was assessed, and studies were examined for themes related to provider- and system-level factors associated with screening uptake. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Findings revealed a positive association between patients' receipt of provider recommendation and uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening. Uptake was also higher among patients of female providers. Facilities with flexible appointment times and reminders had higher mammography and Pap test uptake. Similarly, greater organizational commitment to quality and performance had higher breast and cervical cancer screening rates. Knowledge provided in this review could be used in future research to inform the development of public health policy and clinical programs to improve screening uptake.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".