International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
Mobile Cancer Screening Programs: A Systematic Review of Implementation Challenges and Population Access.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
ElKefi Safa, Scheinmann Roberta, Matthews Alicia K, Phillips Erica
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the design characteristics, implementation considerations, and operational challenges of mobile cancer screening units.
METHODS: A PRISMA-guided review was conducted. Data extracted included screening type, target population, program characteristics, mobile unit features, and reported implementation barriers. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).
RESULTS: Sixty-four articles published across 13 countries met the inclusion criteria. Most interventions focused on breast cancer screening (n = 37), followed by lung (n = 11), cervical (n = 6), colorectal, skin, prostate, and multi-cancer screening programs. MSUs were most frequently deployed in urban areas (21 urban/18 rural/17 both). Several comparative studies (fixed programs vs. MSUs) reported higher screening uptake in mobile programs, although findings varied substantially by setting, population, and study design. However, adherence and clinical outcomes varied, often reflecting baseline socioeconomic differences in the populations served. Common implementation barriers included follow-up coordination challenges, program costs, equipment and space limitations, and gaps in referral and reimbursement systems.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the potential of mobile screening units as public health strategies to expand access to cancer screening while underscoring the need for stronger implementation frameworks and long-term evaluation of program outcomes.
METHODS: A PRISMA-guided review was conducted. Data extracted included screening type, target population, program characteristics, mobile unit features, and reported implementation barriers. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).
RESULTS: Sixty-four articles published across 13 countries met the inclusion criteria. Most interventions focused on breast cancer screening (n = 37), followed by lung (n = 11), cervical (n = 6), colorectal, skin, prostate, and multi-cancer screening programs. MSUs were most frequently deployed in urban areas (21 urban/18 rural/17 both). Several comparative studies (fixed programs vs. MSUs) reported higher screening uptake in mobile programs, although findings varied substantially by setting, population, and study design. However, adherence and clinical outcomes varied, often reflecting baseline socioeconomic differences in the populations served. Common implementation barriers included follow-up coordination challenges, program costs, equipment and space limitations, and gaps in referral and reimbursement systems.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the potential of mobile screening units as public health strategies to expand access to cancer screening while underscoring the need for stronger implementation frameworks and long-term evaluation of program outcomes.