Abstract
Background Physically Disabled women are less likely to access cervical screening than non-disabled women, yet little research has been conducted to understand the problems that Disabled women face or potential solutions. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was conducted with 1493 UK-based participants who identified as having a physical disability, impairment, condition, or difference that makes cervical screening difficult or impossible. Participants were presented with statements about cervical screening problems and potential solutions and asked to indicate agreement using a 5-point scale. They also provided open-ended comments. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, multinomial logistic regression and thematic analysis. Results More than half of participants reported delaying/missing (46.8%) or never attending (8.8%) screening, with most of those (71.0% and 81.4% respectively) indicating that the main reason was disability-related factors. The highest levels of agreement for problems were for concerns about pain, embarrassment, and fear of what the test might find and for potential solutions were for having a doctor or nurse who is willing to try different solutions, discusses specific needs, and understands physical disability. Never-attendance (OR = 0.022, 95% CI 0.014, 0.035) and delaying or missing appointments, (OR = 0.057, 95% CI 0.043, 0.076) negatively predicted future screening attendance. Six themes were identified from open-ended comments, supporting and extending the quantitative findings. Conclusion Disabled women face the same problems related to cervical screening as non-disabled women and additionally face disability-specific problems. Cervical sample taker training should incorporate ways to support physically Disabled women to have equitable access to screening.
Competing Interest Statement
Susan Sherman is a Trustee for the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. The authors declare no other potential competing interests with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was granted ethical approval from Keele University Research Ethics Committee (REF: REC Project Reference 0787) and the University of Sheffield School of Psychology research ethics committee (REF: 064385).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The quantitative data are available at: https://osf.io/ufx8r/files/tm2us The qualitative data will be available from the OSF project page following peer review: https://osf.io/ufx8r/overview
Funder Information Declared
