IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0271874.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding no-show behaviour for cervical cancer screening appointments among hard-to-reach women in Bogotá, Colombia: A mixed-methods approach

Author

Listed:
  • David Barrera Ferro
  • Steffen Bayer
  • Laura Bocanegra
  • Sally Brailsford
  • Adriana Díaz
  • Elena Valentina Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez
  • Honora Smith

Abstract

The global burden of cervical cancer remains a concern and higher early mortality rates are associated with poverty and limited health education. However, screening programs continue to face implementation challenges, especially in developing country contexts. In this study, we use a mixed-methods approach to understand the reasons for no-show behaviour for cervical cancer screening appointments among hard-to-reach low-income women in Bogotá, Colombia. In the quantitative phase, individual attendance probabilities are predicted using administrative records from an outreach program (N = 23384) using both LASSO regression and Random Forest methods. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews are analysed to understand patient perspectives (N = 60). Both inductive and deductive coding are used to identify first-order categories and content analysis is facilitated using the Framework method. Quantitative analysis shows that younger patients and those living in zones of poverty are more likely to miss their appointments. Likewise, appointments scheduled on Saturdays, during the school vacation periods or with lead times longer than 10 days have higher no-show risk. Qualitative data shows that patients find it hard to navigate the service delivery process, face barriers accessing the health system and hold negative beliefs about cervical cytology.

Suggested Citation

  • David Barrera Ferro & Steffen Bayer & Laura Bocanegra & Sally Brailsford & Adriana Díaz & Elena Valentina Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez & Honora Smith, 2022. "Understanding no-show behaviour for cervical cancer screening appointments among hard-to-reach women in Bogotá, Colombia: A mixed-methods approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(7), pages 1-20, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0271874
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271874
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0271874
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0271874&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0271874?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. Bernardo Nuche-Berenguer & Dikaios Sakellariou, 2019. "Socioeconomic determinants of cancer screening utilisation in Latin America: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Sundstrom, Beth & Smith, Ellie & Delay, Cara & Luque, John S. & Davila, Caroline & Feder, Bailey & Paddock, Vincenza & Poudrier, Jessie & Pierce, Jennifer Young & Brandt, Heather M., 2019. "A reproductive justice approach to understanding women's experiences with HPV and cervical cancer prevention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 289-297.
    3. Kangmennaang, Joseph & Onyango, Elizabeth O. & Luginaah, Isaac & Elliott, Susan J., 2018. "The next Sub Saharan African epidemic? A case study of the determinants of cervical cancer knowledge and screening in Kenya," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 203-212.
    4. repec:plo:pone00:0208448 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:plo:pmed00:1001885 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Andreassen, Trude & Weiderpass, Elisabete & Nicula, Florian & Suteu, Ofelia & Itu, Andreea & Bumbu, Minodora & Tincu, Aida & Ursin, Giske & Moen, Kåre, 2017. "Controversies about cervical cancer screening: A qualitative study of Roma women's (non)participation in cervical cancer screening in Romania," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 48-55.
    7. 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.
    8. Alan Brennan & Stephen E. Chick & Ruth Davies, 2006. "A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1295-1310, December.
    9. Dunn, Richard A. & Tan, Andrew K.G., 2010. "Cervical cancer screening in Malaysia: Are targeted interventions necessary?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(6), pages 1089-1093, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Huajie Jin & Stewart Robinson & Wenru Shang & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2021. "Overview and Use of Tools for Selecting Modelling Techniques in Health Economic Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(7), pages 757-770, July.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    11. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    14. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    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. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Subramaniam, Mega & Pang, Natalie & Morehouse, Shandra & Asgarali-Hoffman, S. Nisa, 2020. "Examining vulnerability in youth digital information practices scholarship: What are we missing or exhausting?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    20. 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.

    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:plo:pone00:0271874. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.