Cervical cancer screening from the perspective of a family doctor

Literature review

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18370/2309-4117.2026.82.60-64

Keywords:

human papillomavirus, cervical cancer prevention, cervical screening, organizational and functional model, family physician, general practitioner-family medicine, artificial intelligence, liquid-based cytology

Abstract

Objective of the review: to determine the role of the family physician in the prevention of cervical cancer and to assess potential barriers and prospects for this role; to examine the possibilities of integrating artificial intelligence into the evaluation of liquid-based cytology results; and to assess the potential effects of implementing innovative technologies in cervical screening methods.

Materials and methods. Bibliographic-semantic and analytical methods were applied. The search for relevant sources was conducted in international scientometric databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ) covering publications from 2016 to 2026.

Analysis of literature data. Most women in target groups eligible for cervical screening have a general awareness of human papillomavirus but underestimate its leading role in the development of cervical cancer. As a result, they tend to avoid participation in screening programs for various reasons (logistical, communicational, financial, etc.). An additional factor is insufficient awareness and limited engagement of physicians regarding the possibilities of addressing these barriers. Among the competencies of the family physician (and primary care in general), proactive monitoring and organization of priority target groups are particularly important.

It is also worth noting that the possibility of patient self-sampling significantly facilitates the screening process and increases coverage. Another important aspect is the quality of laboratory diagnostics. There is evidence of a higher frequency of errors due to specialist fatigue resulting from a large volume of repetitive work. Given the rapid development of artificial intelligence, which has achieved a high level of accuracy in the analysis of typical visual patterns, it becomes possible to involve specialists primarily in ambiguous or complex cases, thereby improving the overall quality of diagnostics.

Conclusions. The development and implementation of an effective organizational and functional model of primary healthcare (especially involving general practitioners – family physicians) should be a priority under conditions of limited healthcare resources. This will make it possible to increase coverage, improve population adherence to preventive care, and enhance the credibility of healthcare professionals. This, however, will not be possible without adequate education (including training in communication and social interaction) of healthcare providers. The integration of artificial intelligence with liquid-based cytology reduces the risk of missing precancerous conditions, improves the quality of results, and builds trust in screening outcomes not only among women but also within the population as a whole.

Author Biographies

L.V. Kalugina, SI «Ukrainian Center for Maternity and Childhood of the NAMS of Ukraine»; SI «Center for Innovative Medical Technologies of the NAS of Ukraine», Kyiv

DSc, professor, chief researcher, Department of Endocrine Gynecology
chief researcher, Department of Reproductive Health

Y.V. Tatarchuk, Shupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine, Kyiv

graduate student, Department of Health Care Management

T.F. Tatarchuk, SI “Ukrainian Center for Maternity and Childhood of the NAMS of Ukraine”; SSI “Center for Innovative Medical Technologies of the NAS of Ukraine”, Kyiv

DSc, professor, corresponding member of the NAMS of Ukraine, deputy general director, head of the Endocrine Gynecology Department; chief research fellow, Reproductive Health Department

References

  1. World Health Organization. Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240014107
  2. Fedorenko Z, Gorokh Y, Ryzhov A, Sumkina. Bulletin of the National Cancer Registry of Ukraine. 2025;26 [Internet]. National Cancer Registry of Ukraine (NCRU). 2025. Available from: http://www.ncru.inf.ua/publications/BULL_26/index_e.htm
  3. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21492. Epub 2018 Sep 12. Erratum in: CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jul;70(4):313. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21609.
  4. Lin W, Huang W, Mei C, Liu P, Wang H, Yuan S, et al. Associations between the signing status of family doctor contract services and cervical cancer screening behaviors: a cross-sectional study in Shenzhen, China. BMC Public Health. 2023 Mar 28;23(1):573. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-15462-9
  5. Felsher M, Shumet M, Velicu C, Chen YT, Nowicka K, Marzec M, et al. A systematic literature review of human papillomavirus vaccination strategies in delivery systems within national and regional immunization programs. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2024 Dec 31;20(1):2319426. DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2024.2319426
  6. Order of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine No. 369 dated 05.03.2025 “On Approval of Amendments to Chapters 1, 2 of Section II of the Calendar of Preventive Vaccinations in Ukraine”. [Internet]. Order of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, 2025. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0443-25?lang=en#Text
  7. Çevik HS, Peker AGC, Görpelioğlu S, Vinker S, Ungan M. How to overcome information and communication barriers in Human Papillomavirus vaccination? A SWOT analysis based on the opinions of European family doctors in contact with young people and their parents. Eur J Gen Pract. 2024 Dec;30(1):2393858. DOI:10.1080/13814788.2024.2393858.
  8. Schwendener CL, Kiener LM, Jafflin K, Rouached S, Juillerat A, Meier V, et al. HPV vaccine awareness, knowledge and information sources among youth in Switzerland: a mixed methods study. BMJ Open. 2022 Jan 31;12(1):e054419. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054419.
  9. Sakanishi Y, Takeuchi J, Suganaga R, Nakayama K, Nishioka Y, Chiba H, et al. Association between administration or recommendation of the human papillomavirus vaccine and primary care physicians’ knowledge about vaccination during proactive recommendation suspension: a nationwide cross-sectional study in Japan. BMJ Open. 2023 Nov 22;13(11):e074305. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074305
  10. O’Connor M, McSherry LA, Dombrowski SU, FrancisJJ, Martin CM, O’Leary JJ, et al. Identifying ways to maximise cervical screening uptake: a qualitative study of GPs’ and practice nurses’ cervical cancer screening-related behaviours [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2021, 4:44. DOI: 10.12688/hrbopenres.13246.1)
  11. Barrera Ferro D, Bayer S, Brailsford S, Smith H. Improving intervention design to promote cervical cancer screening among hard-to-reach women: assessing beliefs and predicting individual attendance probabilities in Bogotá, Colombia. BMC Womens Health. 2022 Jun 7;22(1):212. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-022-01800-3.
  12. Choudhury HK, Borah RK. Can financial incentives encourage women to participate in a cervical cancer screening programme? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial analysis. J Cancer Policy. 2022 Jun;32:100324. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2022.100324.
  13. Sypień P, Marek W, Zielonka TM. Awareness and Attitude of Polish Gynecologists and General Practitioners towards Human Papillomavirus Vaccinations. Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Apr 10;11(8):1076. DOI:10.3390/healthcare11081076.
  14. Nagendiram A, Bougher H, Banks J, Hall L, Heal C. Australian women’s self-perceived barriers to participation in cervical cancer screening: A systematic review. Health Promot J Austr. 2020 Sep;31(3):343–53. DOI: 10.1002/hpja.280
  15. Nothacker J, Nury E, Roebl Mathieu M, Raatz H, Meerpohl JJ, Schmucker C. Women’s attitudes towards a human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer screening strategy: a systematic review. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2022 Oct;48(4):295–306. DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2022-201515.
  16. Rickford R, Rogers M, Halliday A, Lamptey P, Kola-Palmer S. Attitudes to reducing cervical screening frequency among UK women: A qualitative analysis. Psychooncology. 2023 May;32(5):721–9. DOI: 10.1002/pon.6117
  17. Poncet L, Rigal L, Panjo H, Gautier A, Chauvin P, Menvielle G, et al. Disengagement of general practitioners in cervical cancer screening. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2016 Nov;25(6):547–55. DOI: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000208.
  18. Raginel T, Grandazzi G, Launoy G, Trocmé M, Christophe V, Berchi C, et al. Social inequalities in cervical cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment among French general practitioners and gynaecologists. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jul 27;20(1):693. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-05479-w
  19. Sultana F, Roeske L, Malloy MJ, McDermott TL, Saville M, Brotherton JML. Implementation of Australia’s renewed cervical screening program: Preparedness of general practitioners and nurses. PLoS One. 2020 Jan 29;15(1):e0228042. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0228042
  20. Munizar M, Ar Royan H, Yolanda F. Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening through Pap Smear Examination among Women Attending the Gynecology Polyclinic at Dr. Zainoel Abidin General Hospital in 2024: A Cross-Sectional Study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2025 Sep 1;26(9):3309–17. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2025.26.9.3309.
  21. Creagh NS, Saunders T, Brotherton J, Hocking J, Karahalios A, Saville M, et al. Practitioners support and intention to adopt universal access to self-collection in Australia’s National Cervical Screening Program. Cancer Med. 2024 May;13(10):e7254. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.7254.
  22. Order of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine No. 1057 of June 18, 2024 “On approval of the standard of medical care. Cervical cancer screening. Management of patients with abnormal screening results and precancerous conditions of the cervix. [Internet]. State Expert Center of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, 2024. Available from: https://www.dec.gov.ua/mtd/rak-shyjky-matky/
  23. Parker S, Deshmukh AA, Chen B, Lairson DR, Daheri M, Vernon SW, et al. Perceived barriers to cervical cancer screening and motivators for at-home human papillomavirus self-sampling during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from a telephone survey. Elife. 2023 May 26;12:e84664. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.84664
  24. Sun L, Patel S, Fiorina C, Glass A, Rochaix L; CBIG-SCREEN Consortium; Foss AM, Legood R. A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved women in Europe. Eur J Health Econ. 2024 Jul;25(5):829–44. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-023-01627-1
  25. Gezels E, Willems S, Vanthomme K, Keersse L, Van Roy K. General Practitioners’ Needs and Preferences Regarding the Provision of Self-sampling Tests for Cervical Cancer Screening in Flanders, Belgium. J Prim Care Community Health. 2025 Jan-Dec;16:21501319251320178. DOI: 10.1177/21501319251320178
  26. Roeske L. A new era in cervical cancer prevention. Aust J Gen Pract. 2018 Jul;47(7):405. DOI: 10.31128/AJGP-01-18-4464
  27. Rochoy M, Raginel T, Favre J, Soueres E, Messaadi N, Deken V, et al. Factors associated with the achievement of cervical smears by general practitioners. BMC Res Notes. 2017 Dec 8;10(1):723. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-017-2999-5.
  28. Favre J, Rochoy M, Raginel T, Pelletier M, Messaadi N, Deken-Delannoy V, et al. The Effect of Cervical Smears Performed by General Practitioners on the Cervical Cancer Screening Rate of their Female Patients: A Claim Database Analysis and Cross-Sectional Survey. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2018 Jul;27(7):933–8. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2017.6656
  29. Fogh Jørgensen S, Kellen E, Haelens A, Herck KV, Njor SH. How follow-up rates in cervical cancer screening depend on organizational factors: A comparison of two population-based organized screening programmes. J Med Screen. 2024 Sep;31(3):191–200. DOI: 10.1177/09691413241231440.
  30. Paulauskiene J, Stelemekas M, Ivanauskiene R, Petkeviciene J. The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cervical Cancer Screening Using a Systematic Invitation System in Lithuania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 5035. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16245035
  31. Jeong H, Hong SR, Chae SW, Jin SY, Yoon HK, Lee J, et al. Comparison of Unsatisfactory Samples from Conventional Smear versus Liquid-Based Cytology in Uterine Cervical Cancer Screening Test. J Pathol Transl Med. 2017 May;51(3):314–9. DOI: 10.4132/jptm.2017.03.17.
  32. Sharma J, Toi PCh, Siddaraju N, Sundareshan M, Habeebullah S. A comparative analysis of conventional and SurePath liquid-based cervicovaginal cytology: A study of 140 cases. J Cytol. 2016 Apr-Jun;33(2):80–4. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9371.182525.
  33. Kldiashvili E, Khuntsaria I, Kekelia E, Mamiseishvili A, Abuladze M. A Comparative Study of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology. Health Sci Rep. 2025 Apr 23;8(4):e70768. DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.70768.
  34. Schiffman M, Yu K, Zuna R, Terence Dunn S, Zhang H, Walker J, et al. Proof-of-principle study of a novel cervical screening and triage strategy: Computer-analyzed cytology to decide which HPV-positive women are likely to have ≥CIN2. Int J Cancer. 2017 Feb 1;140(3):718–25. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30456
  35. Emery JF, Le MK, Levy J, Vaickus L, Liu X. Machine learning, deep learning, and artificial intelligence as applied to the field of cytopathology: a comprehensive review. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2026 Jan-Feb;15(1):4–22. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2025.07.004.
  36. Becton, Dickinson and Company. BD FocalPoint™ GS Imaging System: Automated slide profiling and guided screening. XEUR5427-2020 [Internet]. EMEA; 2020. Available from: https://emea.bd.com/advancing-diagnostics/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/BD_FocalPoint_GS_Imaging_System_ XEUR5427-2020.pdf
  37. Yu K, Hyun N, Fetterman B, Lorey T, Raine-Bennett TR, Zhang H, et al. Automated Cervical Screening and Triage, Based on HPV Testing and Computer- Interpreted Cytology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 Nov 1;110(11):1222–8. DOI:10.1093/jnci/djy044
  38. Leinonen MK, Campbell S, Klungsøyr O, Lönnberg S, Hansen BT, Nygård M. Personal and provider level factors influence participation to cervical cancer screening: A retrospective register-based study of 1.3 million women in Norway. Prev Med. 2017 Jan;94:31–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.11.018.
  39. Vega-Crespo B, Neira VA, Maldonado-Rengel R, López D, Delgado-López D, Guerra Astudillo G, et al. Barriers and Advantages of Self-Sampling Tests, for HPV Diagnosis: A Qualitative Field Experience Before Implementation in a Rural Community in Ecuador. Int J Womens Health. 2024 May 28;16:947–60. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S455118.
  40. Fuzzell LN, Perkins RB, Christy SM, Lake PW, Vadaparampil ST. Cervical cancer screening in the United States: Challenges and potential solutions for underscreened groups. Prev Med. 2021 Mar;144:106400. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106400.

Downloads

Published

2026-04-18

How to Cite

Kalugina, L., Tatarchuk, Y., & Tatarchuk, T. (2026). Cervical cancer screening from the perspective of a family doctor: Literature review. REPRODUCTIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY, (82), 60–64. https://doi.org/10.18370/2309-4117.2026.82.60-64

Issue

No. 82 (2026)

Section

Tumors and pretumoral pathology

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.