Participation in free nationwide population-based breast and cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands has declined, especially among underserved women in low socioeconomic neighborhoods in The Hague.
Aim:
This study aims to identify the social networks, needs, and barriers of these women regarding informed screening decisions.
Method:
A qualitative study with interviews, focus groups, and field observations.
Results:
Social networks—including family, community centers, religious institutions, and key community figures—were central to reach underserved women. Women expressed a need for clear, accessible information in their native language and from trusted sources. Barriers included language difficulties, lack of knowledge, limited digital skills, cultural and religious beliefs, fear, and distrust in health care.
Discussion:
Findings suggest that providing culturally sensitive information and engaging social networks are essential for supporting informed decisions and reducing health disparities. Effective strategies should focus on trust-building, communication, and community involvement. Future research should evaluate these strategies.
AartsM. J.VoogdA. C.DuijmL. E.CoeberghJ. W. W.LouwmanW. J. (2011). Socioeconomic inequalities in attending the mass screening for breast cancer in the south of the Netherlands—associations with stage at diagnosis and survival. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 128, 517–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1363-z
2.
AgénorM.NohM.EidusonR.LeBlancM.LineE. C.GoldmanR. E.PotterJ.AustinS. B. (2024). Barriers to and opportunities for advancing racial equity in cervical cancer screening in the United States. BMC Women’s Health, 24(1), Article 362. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03151-7
3.
BongaertsT. H.BüchnerF. L.De MunckL.ElferinkM. A.GuicheritO. R.NumansM. E. (2023). Attendance characteristics of the breast and colorectal cancer screening programmes in a highly urbanised region of the Netherlands: A retrospective observational study. BMJ Open, 13(6), Article e071354. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071354
4.
BongaertsT. H.BüchnerF. L.MiddelkoopB. J.GuicheritO. R.NumansM. E. (2020). Determinants of (non-)attendance at the Dutch cancer screening programmes: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Screening, 27(3), 121–129. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0969141319887996
5.
BongaertsT. H.RidderM.Vermeer-MensJ. C.PlukkelJ. J.NumansM. E.BüchnerF. L. (2021). Cervical cancer screening among underserved women: A cross-sectional intervention study. International Journal of Women’s Health, 13, 549–556. https://doi.org/10.2147/ijwh.s302002
BrayF.LaversanneM.SungH.FerlayJ.SiegelR. L.SoerjomataramI.JemalA. (2024). Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 74(3), 229–263. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21834
8.
BroedersM.MossS.NyströmL.NjorS.JonssonH.PaapE.MassatN.DuffyS.LyngeE.PaciE.; EUROSCREEN Working Group. (2012). The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: A review of observational studies. Journal of Medical Screening, 19, 14–25.
9.
BuusN.OngB.EinbodenR.JuelA.PerronA. (2025). Constructing research quality: On the performativity of the COREQ checklist. Qualitative Health Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323251323225
10.
Escribà-AgüirV.Rodriguez-GomezM.Ruiz-PerezI. (2016). Effectiveness of patient-targeted interventions to promote cancer screening among ethnic minorities: A systematic review. Cancer Epidemiology, 44, 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2016.07.009
11.
FerrariA.Jael HerreraD.van de VeerdonkW.D’haenensW.Ruiz AlejosA.Van BosL.TalboomS.DingL.GoossensM.Van HalG. (2024). Advancing mammography uptake among vulnerable groups: A systematic review of intervention strategies. European Journal of Public Health, 34(Suppl. 3), ckae144.1318. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckae144.1318
12.
FerrariA.Van BosL.TalboomS.van de VeerdonkW.D’haenensW.PakM.DescanM.ParmentierS.Van CollieL.SibietP.GoossensM.Van HalG. (2025). From barriers to participation: Co-creating an effective reminder letter for breast cancer screening among underserved women in Flanders. Archives of Public Health, 83(1), 132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-025-01591-7
13.
GaiaA.BrownM.AdaliT.FleetwoodS.LaiC. (2025). Response burden and survey participation. Experimental evidence on the effect of interview length on non-response conversion. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 29, 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2025.2537398
14.
GillibrandS.GibsonH.HowellsK.UrwinS.DaviesJ. C.CrosbieE. J.SandersC. (2025). Exploring the barriers to cervical screening and perspectives on new self-sampling methods amongst under-served groups. BMC Health Services Research, 25(1), Article 79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-12098-2
15.
GreenleyR.BellS.RigbyS.LegoodR.KirkbyV.McKeeM.; CBIGSCREEN Consortium. (2023). Factors influencing the participation of groups identified as underserved in cervical cancer screening in Europe: A scoping review of the literature. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, Article 1144674. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1144674
16.
HamdiuiN.MarchenaE.SteinM. L.Van SteenbergenJ. E.CrutzenR.Van KeulenH. M.ReisR.van den MuijsenberghM. E. T. C.TimenA. (2022). Decision-making, barriers, and facilitators regarding cervical cancer screening participation among Turkish and Moroccan women in the Netherlands: A focus group study. Ethnicity & Health, 27(5), 1147–1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2020.1863921
HartmanE.Van den MuijsenberghM.HaneveldR. W. (2009). Breast cancer screening participation among Turks and Moroccans in the Netherlands: Exploring reasons for nonattendance. European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 18(5), 349–353. https://doi.org/10.1097/cej.0b013e32832bf40f
19.
HoffmanE.VerdoorenA. (2019). Diversity-sensitive communication and the TOPOI model. In HoffmanE.Marianus HoffmanE.VerdoorenA. (Eds.), Diversity competence: Cultures don't meet, people do (pp. 113–135). CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781789242409.0113
20.
KasmiS. (2018). Waarom een lage opkomst bij borstkankerscreening? Een kwalitatief onderzoek naar de beweegredenen van Turkse en Marokkaanse vrouwen bij de deelname aan het bevolkingsonderzoek borstkanker [Why low participation in breast cancer screening? A qualitative study on the motives of Turkish and Moroccan women in participating in the national breast cancer screening program][Master thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam].
21.
Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu [National Institute for Public Health and the Environment]. (2023). Population screening programmes. https://www.rivm.nl/node/993
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
