IatTou Sam, Wen Dang, NgaTeng Iu, ZiYue Luo, Yu-Tao Xiang, Robert David Smith
{"title":"男男性行为者肛门癌筛查的障碍和促进因素:一项综合叙事的系统综述。","authors":"IatTou Sam, Wen Dang, NgaTeng Iu, ZiYue Luo, Yu-Tao Xiang, Robert David Smith","doi":"10.1186/s12885-025-13980-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Increasing trends of anal cancer among men who have sex with men (MSM) highlight the importance of anal cancer screening. However, the screening rate of anal cancer among MSM remains relatively low. This systematic review aims to identify and critically evaluate studies examining barriers and facilitators influencing MSM's participation in anal cancer screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic searches were performed in five databases (Web of Science, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL). Evidence from qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies was extracted and synthesized. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality assessment. Two researchers underwent selection and appraisal independently. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024601449.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>305 studies were identified with a total of 32 studies included, including 11 qualitative studies, 18 quantitative studies, and 3 mixed methods studies. The barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening were categorized into four domains: individual factors, healthcare system factors, healthcare provider factors, and screen-related factors. Among the four domains, the most frequently reported barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening were individual factors. A lack of knowledge about the risks of HPV, anal cancer, and anal screening (n = 16) was the most significant barrier. In contrast, a greater perceived understanding of anal cancer and screening (n = 6) was identified as the primary facilitator.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review provided a comprehensive assessment of barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening among MSM, highlighting the need for targeted comprehensive intervention programs to enhance acceptance of screening. Implementing effective strategies to address potential barriers and promote facilitators across all domains of public health could significantly increase screening uptake.</p>","PeriodicalId":9131,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cancer","volume":"25 1","pages":"586"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11963451/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening among men who have sex with men: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.\",\"authors\":\"IatTou Sam, Wen Dang, NgaTeng Iu, ZiYue Luo, Yu-Tao Xiang, Robert David Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12885-025-13980-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Increasing trends of anal cancer among men who have sex with men (MSM) highlight the importance of anal cancer screening. However, the screening rate of anal cancer among MSM remains relatively low. This systematic review aims to identify and critically evaluate studies examining barriers and facilitators influencing MSM's participation in anal cancer screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic searches were performed in five databases (Web of Science, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL). Evidence from qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies was extracted and synthesized. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality assessment. Two researchers underwent selection and appraisal independently. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024601449.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>305 studies were identified with a total of 32 studies included, including 11 qualitative studies, 18 quantitative studies, and 3 mixed methods studies. The barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening were categorized into four domains: individual factors, healthcare system factors, healthcare provider factors, and screen-related factors. Among the four domains, the most frequently reported barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening were individual factors. A lack of knowledge about the risks of HPV, anal cancer, and anal screening (n = 16) was the most significant barrier. In contrast, a greater perceived understanding of anal cancer and screening (n = 6) was identified as the primary facilitator.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review provided a comprehensive assessment of barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening among MSM, highlighting the need for targeted comprehensive intervention programs to enhance acceptance of screening. Implementing effective strategies to address potential barriers and promote facilitators across all domains of public health could significantly increase screening uptake.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Cancer\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"586\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11963451/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-13980-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-13980-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:肛门癌在男男性行为者(MSM)中呈上升趋势,这突出了肛门癌筛查的重要性。然而,在男男性行为者中肛门癌的筛查率仍然相对较低。本系统综述旨在确定并批判性地评估研究影响男男性行为者参与肛门癌筛查的障碍和促进因素。方法:系统检索Web of Science、Medline、Embase、PsycINFO、CINAHL 5个数据库。从定性、定量和混合方法研究中提取和合成证据。采用混合方法评价工具(MMAT)进行质量评价。两名研究人员分别进行了甄选和评估。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42024601449。结果:共纳入研究305项,共32项,其中定性研究11项,定量研究18项,混合方法研究3项。肛门癌筛查的障碍和促进因素分为四个领域:个人因素、医疗保健系统因素、医疗保健提供者因素和筛查相关因素。在这四个领域中,最常报道的肛门癌筛查的障碍和促进因素是个体因素。缺乏关于HPV、肛门癌和肛门筛查风险的知识(n = 16)是最重要的障碍。相比之下,对肛门癌和筛查(n = 6)的更大理解被认为是主要的促进因素。结论:本系统综述全面评估了MSM中肛门癌筛查的障碍和促进因素,强调了有针对性的综合干预方案的必要性,以提高筛查的接受度。实施有效战略,解决公共卫生所有领域的潜在障碍和促进促进因素,可显著提高筛查的接受程度。
Barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening among men who have sex with men: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.
Background: Increasing trends of anal cancer among men who have sex with men (MSM) highlight the importance of anal cancer screening. However, the screening rate of anal cancer among MSM remains relatively low. This systematic review aims to identify and critically evaluate studies examining barriers and facilitators influencing MSM's participation in anal cancer screening.
Methods: Systematic searches were performed in five databases (Web of Science, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL). Evidence from qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies was extracted and synthesized. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality assessment. Two researchers underwent selection and appraisal independently. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024601449.
Results: 305 studies were identified with a total of 32 studies included, including 11 qualitative studies, 18 quantitative studies, and 3 mixed methods studies. The barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening were categorized into four domains: individual factors, healthcare system factors, healthcare provider factors, and screen-related factors. Among the four domains, the most frequently reported barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening were individual factors. A lack of knowledge about the risks of HPV, anal cancer, and anal screening (n = 16) was the most significant barrier. In contrast, a greater perceived understanding of anal cancer and screening (n = 6) was identified as the primary facilitator.
Conclusions: This systematic review provided a comprehensive assessment of barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening among MSM, highlighting the need for targeted comprehensive intervention programs to enhance acceptance of screening. Implementing effective strategies to address potential barriers and promote facilitators across all domains of public health could significantly increase screening uptake.
期刊介绍:
BMC Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of cancer research, including the pathophysiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. The journal welcomes submissions concerning molecular and cellular biology, genetics, epidemiology, and clinical trials.