Search

Routine, population-wide cervical screening programmes reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality. However, socioeconomically deprived communities and ethnic minority groups typically have lower uptake in comparison to the general population and thus are described as 'underserved.' A systematic qualitative literature review was conducted to identify relevant determinants of participation for these groups. Online databases were searched for relevant literature from countries with well-established, call-recall screening programmes. Overall, 24 articles were eligible for inclusion. Data was synthesized via Framework synthesis. Dahlgren & Whitehead's social model of health was used as a broad a priori coding framework. Participation was influenced by determinants at multiple levels. Overall, patient-provider relationships and peer support facilitated engagement. Cultural disparities, past healthcare experience and practical barriers hindered service access and exacerbated negative thoughts, feelings and attitudes towards participation. Complex interrelationships between determinants suggest barriers have a cumulative effect on screening participation. These findings present a framework of psychosocial determinants of cervical screening uptake in underserved women and emphasise the role of policy makers and practitioners in reducing structural barriers to screening services. Additional work, exploring the experience of those living within socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, is needed to strengthen understanding in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Tobacco smoking remains a leading cause of ill-health, premature mortality and a driver of health inequalities. To support smokers in England, a comprehensive approach to treating tobacco dependence is being implemented. This includes offering support to all people admitted to hospitals, as well as women and pregnant people within NHS settings. We aim to describe the protocol for an evaluation of this tobacco-dependence service., Methods and Analysis: This is a national evaluation across five regions in England (i.e., South West, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, North East and North Cumbria, Yorkshire and Humber) including 11 NHS Foundation Trusts. It is funded from September 2021 to September 2025. Evaluation settings are acute hospital, maternity and inpatient mental health.Work package (WP) 1 involves qualitative key informant interviews to characterise the policy implementation context. WP 2 involves an online survey to assess the routinisation of the service in practice and staff attitudes regarding tobacco dependence, plus in-depth interviews with relevant practitioners to explore survey findings and interviews with smokers to investigate its usefulness and impact. WP 3 involves descriptive statistical analysis of routinely collected data to assess service uptake and impact on health and care outcomes (e.g., smoking status). WP 4 involves an economic analysis of routinely collected data to determine the financial impact of the service. Qualitative data (WP 1, WP 2) will be analysed using Thematic Analysis and Framework Analysis, respectively. WP 2 survey data will be analysed using descriptive statistics., Ethics and Dissemination: This evaluation received favourable ethical opinion from Newcastle University (17756/2021) and NHS Wales Research Ethics Committee (22/WA/0203). It has also received Confidentiality Advisory Group support (22CAG0103)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ Group.)

Objective: Public Involvement (PI) in applied health and social care research has grown exponentially in the UK. This review aims to synthesise published UK evidence that evaluates the process and/or outcome(s) of PI in applied health and social care research to identify key contextual factors, effective strategies, outcomes and public partner experiences underpinning meaningful PI in research., Methods: Following a pre-registered protocol, we systematically searched four databases and two key journals for studies conducted within the UK between January 2006 and July 2024. A team of public partners and researchers carried out independent dual screening and data extraction. Included studies were narratively synthesised via Framework Synthesis., Results: Nineteen studies evaluated the PI process with a range of populations including National Health Service (NHS) users, carers, and low-income communities. No specific outcome evaluations were identified. Through their experience, public partners described important components of meaningful PI such as mutual respect and seeing and contributing to change, as well as some unintended harms of involvement. Harms related to 'experiencing negative attitudes', 'emotional burden of involvement', 'frustration and disappointment' and 'further marginalisation'. Meaningful PI was underpinned by structural, organisational, interpersonal and individual factors; as well as practical and principle-based strategies of involvement. Both public partners and researchers reflected on a range of outcomes of meaningful PI including changes to the research process and longer term impacts on organisations, researchers and public partners., Conclusions: PI in research must be facilitated at multiple levels to reduce unintended harm and encourage meaningful and impactful outcomes. Findings are summarised within a model which gives an overview of priorities for individual researchers, organisations and funders to ensure best practice is achievable. From a methodological perspective, researchers should prioritise robust, transparent and co-produced approaches to evaluating PI to increase knowledge in the field., Patient and Public Involvement: A regional public advisory network provided insight on the relevance and acceptability of the review concept. Our core research team included three public partners. Public partners contributed to the development of the initial review protocol, abstract and full-text screening, reviewing findings and their interpretation and writing the final report., (© 2025 The Author(s). Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)