IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v122y2018i11p1190-1197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying the barriers to effective breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in thirty one European countries using the Barriers to Effective Screening Tool (BEST)

Author

Listed:
  • Priaulx, Jennifer
  • de Koning, Harry J.
  • de Kok, Inge M.C.M.
  • Széles, György
  • McKee, Martin

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify barriers to effective breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening programmes throughout the whole of the European region using the Barriers to Effective Screening Tool (BEST). The study was part of the scope of the EU-TOPIA (TOwards imProved screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer In All of Europe) project and respondents were European screening organisers, researchers and policymakers taking part in a workshop for the project in Budapest in September 2017. 67 respondents from 31 countries responded to the online survey. The study found that there are many barriers to effective screening throughout the system from identification of the eligible population to ensuring appropriate follow-up and treatment for the three cancers. The most common barriers were opportunistic screening, sub-optimal participation, limited capacity (including trained human resource), inadequate and/or disjointed information technology systems and complex administration procedures. Many of the barriers were reported consistently across different countries. This study identified the barriers that, in general, require further investment of resources.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:122:y:2018:i:11:p:1190-1197
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.08.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851018303816
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.08.004?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ansgar Wübker, 2014. "Explaining variations in breast cancer screening across European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(5), pages 497-514, June.
    2. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jennifer Priaulx & Marcell Csanádi & Harry J. de Koning & Martin McKee, 2019. "A choice experiment to identify the most important elements of a successful cancer screening program according to those who research and manage such programs," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 34-45, January.

    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. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Mark Pletscher, 2017. "The effects of organized screening programs on the demand for mammography in Switzerland," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(5), pages 649-665, June.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Goldzahl, Léontine & Hollard, Guillaume & Jusot, Florence, 2018. "Increasing breast-cancer screening uptake: A randomized controlled experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 228-252.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Ilona Székely Kovácsné & Éva Fenyvesi & Tibor Pintér, 2023. "Principal Component Analysis - Points of Association Between Cancer and Economic Development," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 15(2), pages 91-130, June.
    18. Magdalena Lagerlund & Juan Merlo & Raquel Pérez Vicente & Sophia Zackrisson, 2015. "Does the Neighborhood Area of Residence Influence Non-Attendance in an Urban Mammography Screening Program? A Multilevel Study in a Swedish City," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-21, October.
    19. 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.

    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:eee:hepoli:v:122:y:2018:i:11:p:1190-1197. 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: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    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.