Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background Cervical cancer is a significant public health issue in Thailand. Despite the implementation of a national screening program, its coverage remains suboptimal. This study aims to systematically review local Thai evidence and comprehensively analyze the multi-level barriers affecting women’s participation in cervical cancer screening using the social ecological model (SEM). Methods Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and ThaiJO databases from inception to 2025. Literature was screened according to pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in the inclusion of 11 studies. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale and a mixed-methods assessment tool were used for rigorous quality appraisal. Thematic synthesis was used to categorize screening barriers into five levels: individual, interpersonal, community, health system and public policy. Results The key obstacles identified include: at the individual level, lack of knowledge, fear, shame and insufficient risk perception; at the interpersonal level, the influence of family and social norms; at the community level, cultural, religious and regional factors; at the health system level, poor service accessibility and system inefficiencies; and at the public policy level, incomplete health insurance coverage and insufficient awareness campaigns. Many of these obstacles show distinct characteristics of Thai society and culture. Conclusion Barriers to cervical cancer screening among Thai women constitute a complex, multi-level system. Future intervention strategies must move beyond single-level health education, and should develop cross-level, culturally-appropriate, comprehensive measures. These include promoting HPV self-sampling, conducting community empowerment education, optimizing the health service system and strengthening policy support to systematically increase screening participation.
Zou et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: