Improving access to breast cancer screening by women with learning disabilities: a literature review
Intended for healthcare professionals
Evidence and practice    

Improving access to breast cancer screening by women with learning disabilities: a literature review

Erin Johanna Oelmann @ldnursingUWE Nursing student BSc (Hons) Nursing (Learning Disabilities), School of Health and Social Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, England
Emma Douglass Senior lecturer, School of Health and Social Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, England

Why you should read this article:
  • To recognise the barriers experienced by women with learning disabilities in accessing breast cancer screening

  • To understand that person-centred practice, reasonable adjustments and support in decision-making may facilitate access to breast cancer screening

  • To appreciate that implementation of a ‘screening passport’ may assist in reducing health inequities and improve access to breast cancer screening

Breast cancer screening can facilitate earlier diagnosis and improved outcomes. However, women with learning disabilities are less likely to attend breast cancer screening than the general population. This article reports the findings of a literature review that aimed to identify the barriers that prevent women with learning disabilities from accessing breast cancer screening and, through synthesis of the findings, identify solutions to improve attendance rates. The article discusses two themes identified from analysis of the studies reviewed – ‘a person-centred approach to screening is pivotal’ and ‘supporting breast cancer screening decision-making’. The authors conclude that a person-centred approach to care, support for women in decision-making and implementing reasonable adjustments can support access to breast cancer screening for this population. The authors also recommend the development of a breast cancer screening passport to support this process.

Learning Disability Practice. 26, 3, 24-32. doi: 10.7748/ldp.2022.e2203

Correspondence

erinoelmann@icloud.com

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and has been checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict of interest

None declared

Permission

To reuse this article or for information about reprints and permissions, please contact permissions@rcni.com

Want to read more?

RCNi-Plus
Already have access? Log in

or

3-month trial offer for £5.25/month

Subscribe today and save 50% on your first three months
RCNi Plus users have full access to the following benefits:
  • Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
  • RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
  • NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
  • A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics
Subscribe

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now


Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more