May 27, 2026

Barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment receipt, time-to-treatment and treatment adherence in the UK and Republic of Ireland: A scoping review of the literature.

DOI
https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.j8nlk7b5xg5r/v1
  • Lizzie Merrill1,
  • Tetyana Perchyk1,
  • Zoe Clothier1,
  • Sarah Beck1,
  • Natalie Gil1,
  • Gary Abel2,
  • Eva Morris3,
  • Emma L. Giles4,
  • Elena Finn5,
  • Katie Spencer6,
  • Kate Brain7,
  • Jenna Bhimani1,
  • Katirina L Whitaker1,
  • Robert Kerrison1
  • 1School of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK;
  • 2University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK;
  • 3Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;
  • 4School of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Teesside, UK;
  • 5University College London Hospitals, London, UK;
  • 6Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK;
  • 7Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
Lizzie Merrill
Icon indicating open access to content
QR code linking to this content
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.j8nlk7b5xg5r/v1
Protocol Citation: Lizzie Merrill, Tetyana Perchyk, Zoe Clothier, Sarah Beck, Natalie Gil, Gary Abel, Eva Morris, Emma L. Giles, Elena Finn, Katie Spencer, Kate Brain, Jenna Bhimani, Katirina L Whitaker, Robert Kerrison 2026. Barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment receipt, time-to-treatment and treatment adherence in the UK and Republic of Ireland: A scoping review of the literature.. protocols.io https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.j8nlk7b5xg5r/v1
License: This is an open access  protocol  distributed under the terms of the  Creative Commons Attribution License,  which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Protocol status: Working
We use this protocol and it's working
Created: May 27, 2026
Last Modified: May 27, 2026
Protocol  Integer ID: 317997
Keywords: facilitators to cancer treatment receipt, treatment adherence in the uk, cancer treatment receipt, facilitators to curative cancer treatment, treatment adherence, curative cancer treatment, facilitators to treatment receipt, facilitators to curative treatment, implementation of treatment, treatment plan, treatment receipt, adults with cancer, adherent with the treatment plan, curative treatment, adherence, cancer, treatment, specialist oncologist, patient, such treatment, knowledge gaps for future research, qualitative study, included study
Funders Acknowledgements:
Cancer Research UK
Grant ID: RCCCEA-Nov24/100001
Abstract
Background. Cancer is a leading cause of mortality in the United Kingdom (UK). Survival is improved when patients receive curative treatment ('treatment receipt'), with further improvements when such treatment is initiated early (shorter 'time-to-treatment') and implementation of treatment is adherent with the treatment plan ('treatment adherence'). However, various factors can influence each of these stages, affecting whether patients receive treatment, how soon they start treatment and whether they adhere to treatment. Although such barriers and facilitators are widely discussed in the literature, the evidence base remains fragmented, with no reviews synthesising what is currently known about the factors that hinder treatment receipt, timeliness and adherence.

Aims. The aims of this review are to: 1) collate, extract and synthesise existing literature from the UK and the Republic of Ireland that investigates the barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment receipt, time-to-treatment and treatment adherence, and 2) identify knowledge gaps for future research.

Methods. To address these aims, we are conducting a scoping review, using the six-stage framework described by Arksey and O'Malley, which includes (1) defining the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting studies, (4) charting the data, (5) synthesizing and reporting results, and (6) consulting with stakeholders. The first two stages have been completed, the third stage is in progress and the last three stages have not yet been started. The research question was formulated using the PCC mnemonic: 'Population (adults with cancer, or carers or healthcare professionals supporting adults with cancer), Concept (barriers and/or facilitators to treatment receipt, time-to-treatment or treatment adherence), and Context (UK and Republic of Ireland).' A comprehensive search strategy was developed by incorporating key words and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) to capture qualitative studies, mixed-methods studies and quantitative surveys exploring psychological, social, practical or access-related barriers and facilitators to curative cancer treatment. The search strategy was applied to Web of Science, Embase, Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO and Google Scholar. Articles published ≥2011, available in English, involving adults (≥18 years) with cancer, carers or healthcare professionals supporting adults with cancer in the UK or Republic of Ireland, which examined barriers and/or facilitators to curative treatment, time-to-treatment, or treatment adherence were deemed eligible. We excluded studies involving individuals 3c18 years, studies that collected data prior to 2011, studies focussing solely on non-curative treatments (e.g. palliative or end of life care), grey literature and studies outside of the UK or Republic of Ireland (unless part of a multi-country study including these settings, where UK or Republic of Ireland-specific data could be extracted). In total, 4,239 unique articles have been identified, 247 passed title and abstract review and 100 passed full text review. Data from included studies is now being extracted using a standardised data extraction form developed by the authors to facilitate a descriptive and narrative synthesis. All results will be reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and will be disseminated through a written manuscript detailing the findings. The methods used throughout the scoping review and the interpretation of findings will be reviewed by specialist oncologists, patients and members of the public.
Introduction
Cancer remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United Kingdom (UK) [1]. While timely receipt of curative cancer treatment is critical for improving outcomes [2-4], patients’ ability to access, initiate and complete treatment is shaped by a wide range of interacting barriers and facilitators operating at individual, social and health-system levels [5, 6]. These factors influence not only whether curative treatment is received, but also how quickly treatment is initiated and whether patients are able to adhere to recommended care. Understanding these barriers and facilitators is therefore essential for interpreting variations in treatment delivery and identifying opportunities to improve access to effective cancer care.

A growing body of research highlights numerous challenges that can impede patients’ ability to access and complete cancer treatment. These challenges span personal, social, structural, organisational and systemic factors and may arise at any stage of the treatment pathway. Reported barriers include difficulties navigating healthcare systems, challenges in communication and understanding of treatment options, logistical and practical obstacles, psychosocial concerns and limitations in service capacity or coordination. Barriers such as these can collectively contribute to treatment delays, reduced adherence or forgone treatment, ultimately influencing outcomes [7-11]. Evidence also highlights factors including facilitators that can enable access to treatment and support progression through the care pathway, often by mitigating or counteracting these barriers. Facilitators similarly operate at a personal, social, organisational and systemic level and include supportive relationships with family members and carers, effective communication and continuity of care, navigation and advocacy support, flexible service delivery models, and the provision of reasonable adjustments tailored to individual needs [12, 13]. When present, these facilitators can enhance engagement with services, improve understanding and decision making, and support sustained participation in treatment.

Despite the significance of these issues, the existing evidence base on barriers and facilitators to treatment across different cancers and treatment types remains fragmented. Studies vary widely in methodology, population focus and the aspects of treatment they examine, making it difficult to form an overarching understanding of the factors that hinder/enable timely and complete cancer treatment. To our knowledge, no published review has systematically mapped evidence on barriers and facilitators to treatment receipt, time-to-treatment and adherence, drawing together qualitative, mixed-methods and survey-based studies, specifically within the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

This scoping review will address this gap by systematically identifying and synthesising existing literature on barriers and facilitators to curative cancer treatment receipt, time to treatment and treatment adherence, drawing on evidence from patient, carer and healthcare professional perspectives. By collating this evidence, the review aims to provide a clear overview of the factors that impede or support treatment across the cancer care pathway and to identify areas where further research is needed. This review forms part of a broader programme of work investigating inequalities across the cancer treatment pathway. Together the two reviews will provide insights into where inequalities in curative cancer treatment arise, for whom, and the reasons why.
Aims and Objectives
The aim of this review is to identify the existing UK and Republic of Ireland literature on the barriers and facilitators influencing cancer treatment receipt, time-to-treatment, and treatment adherence. The specific objectives are to:

  1. Collate, extract, map and synthesise qualitative, mixed methods and quantitative survey evidence on barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment receipt, time to treatment and treatment adherence in the UK and the Republic of Ireland, as reported from patient, carer and healthcare professional perspectives.
  2. Identify knowledge gaps for future research.
Study Design
The review will adopt a scoping review methodology to map the existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment receipt, time-to-treatment and treatment adherence in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. A scoping review is the most appropriate approach given the breadth of the topic, the diversity of study designs in this area and the exploratory nature of the review question. It enables the systematic identification, charting and synthesising of evidence without restricting the review to narrowly defined outcomes or methodologies.

To ensure methodological rigour, the review will follow the six-stage framework previously described by Arksey and O’Malley [14]:

  • Stage 1. Identifying the research question;
  • Stage 2. Searching for relevant studies;
  • Stage 3. Selecting studies;
  • Stage 4. Charting the data;
  • Stage 5. Collating, summarising and reporting the results;
  • Stage 6. Consultation with stakeholders

The following presents an overview of the approach taken, including work completed to date and planned future work. Stages 1-3 have been completed already, Stage 4is in progress and stages 5 and 6 have not yet commenced.
Stage 1: Identifying the research question (Completed)
We formulated the research question using the PCC mnemonic: ‘Population, Concept, Context’. This allowed us to define the core components of our research question:

Population. Adults (≥18 years) with cancer, or carers or healthcare professionals supporting adults with cancer Concept. Barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment receipt, time-to-treatment and treatment adherence Context. The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland

The research question was consequently expressed as follows: “What are the barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment receipt, time to treatment, and treatment adherence the UK and the Republic of Ireland?”
Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies (Completed)
To identify studies relevant to our research question, we developed a comprehensive search strategy. We began by curating a list of key words and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) for each PCC component, using literature known to the authors, including two related reviews: one exploring cancer inequalities in the UK (and the data used to measure them), and another exploring interventions to reduce treatment inequalities [15,16]. Key words and MeSH terms, within components, were then combined using the Boolean Operator ‘OR’, while PCC components were combined through bracketing and use of the Boolean Operator ‘AND’ (wildcards were used to truncate words with multiple suffixes).

The resulting search string was adapted for multiple databases, using their respective syntax. Specifically, the search string was adapted for: Web of Science, Embase, Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO and Google Scholar. These databases were selected in accordance with the method proposed by Bramer and colleagues (2017), who recommend: "reviews should combine Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (the 200 first relevant references) at minimum” and that “special topic databases, such as CINAHL and PsycINFO, should be added if the topic of the review directly touches the primary focus of a specialized subject database” [17]. The search string used for each database is presented in the Appendix (see Appendices 1-6).

The searches were limited to articles published after 2011. This period was chosen to ensure studies reflected current service structures and potential inequalities in cancer care, following the publication of two landmark policies: i.e. the Equality Act 2010 [21] and the Improving Outcomes Strategy for Cancer (2011) [18, 19]).

The results from the searches were exported to Rayyan for duplicate removal and screening. Rayyan is a web based and mobile supported platform designed to support systematic and scoping reviews by facilitating collaborative title and abstract screening, enabling documentation of inclusion and exclusion decisions, and supporting transparent and reproducible evidence selection processes [20].
Stage 3: Selection process (Completed)
A total of 7,900 articles have been identified through Embase (n=2,324), Medline (n=1,983), Web of Science (n=2,210), CINAHL (n=803), PsychINFO (n=380) and Google Scholar (n=200) (see Appendix 7). Of these, 3,661 were duplicates, leaving 4,239 articles eligible for title and abstract review. Title and abstract review were performed independently by four of the authors (LM, TP, SB and ZC). To ensure consistency, eligibility criteria were discussed and agreed upon, with an initial sample of 250 articles screened by all four authors. Disagreements between authors were resolved through discussion, and the eligibility criteria refined accordingly. Following this process, the remaining records were distributed among the four reviewers and screened independently, with each reviewer screening a comparable number of records.

Following title and abstract review, a total of 247 articles were deemed eligible for full text review. Full text review was then performed by two authors (LM and RK), who independently reviewed all 247 articles. Disagreements were discussed between the two authors and, did not need adjudication by a third reviewer. Following full-text review, 100 studies met the inclusion criteria and are to be included in the final analysis. Reasons for exclusion at the full text stage has been be recorded to ensure transparency. The overall study selection process was documented using a PRISMA ScR flow diagram and checklist.

Inclusion criteria Studies were eligible for inclusion based on the following criteria:
  • Primary research
  • Published in peer-reviewed journals
  • Published after 1st January 2011
  • Reported data collected wholly after 2011
  • Available in English
  • Qualitative studies, mixed‑methods studies and quantitative survey studies where barriers and/or facilitators to cancer treatment are explicitly reported. (e.g. perceived barriers, ranked facilitators, or author interpreted findings).
  • Conducted in the UK or Republic of Ireland
  • Included individuals with cancer age >18 years, or carers/healthcare professionals involved in the care of adults
  • Explores barriers and/or facilitators to curative treatment receipt, time-to-treatment and/or treatment adherence.

Exclusion criteria Studies were excluded if:
  • Secondary research
  • Grey literature (e.g. reports, policy documents, theses and organisational publications).
  • Published before 1st January 2011
  • Reported data collected wholly or partially before 1st January 2011
  • Unavailable in English
  • Quantitative‑only studies that do not examine or report barriers and/or facilitators to cancer treatment.
  • Conducted outside the UK and Republic of Ireland
  • Focus exclusively on paediatric patient populations (aged <18 years), or include mixed‑age populations where adult (≥18 years) data cannot be disaggregated.
  • Focus solely on non-curative treatments (e.g. palliative, end-of-life, restorative, experimental or complimentary treatments)
  • Focus exclusively on clinical or biological determinants of treatment (e.g. cancer stage, tumour severity, pharmacological toxicity or treatment side‑effect profiles) without consideration of patient‑, carer‑, clinician‑ or system‑level barriers or facilitators.

A table summarising the eligibility criteria is presented in Appendix 8.
Stage 4: Charting the data (Started)
Data will be extracted using a structured data extraction form developed by the review team to ensure consistency and transparency across studies (Appendix 9). As this review will capture qualitative, mixed‑methods and survey-based evidence, the charting process will capture descriptive and contextual information about the included studies, alongside participant reported data, author interpreted findings, and illustrative quotes (where available) related to barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment receipt, time to treatment, and treatment adherence. The following information will be extracted:

  • Study characteristics, including author(s), year of publication, study design, setting, cancer type, participant group (patients, carers, healthcare professionals), and sample characteristics.
  • Treatment‑related details, such as the treatment stage examined (e.g., receipt, initiation, adherence), treatment modality (e.g., surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy).
  • Barriers and facilitators, as described by participants or interpreted by study authors, including psychological, social, practical, organisational, system‑level, or communication‑related factors.
  • Contextual information relevant to interpreting the findings, such as healthcare setting, geographical context, and any structural or service‑related considerations.
  • Methodological features including data collection and analysis approaches, to support interpretation of qualitative, mixed methods, and survey based evidence.
  • Use of theory or conceptual frameworks, including whether studies are explicitly theory‑informed and, where applicable, the theoretical or conceptual framework(s) drawn upon.
  • Patient, carer and public involvement, including whether and how patients, carers or members of the public were involved in study design, conduct or interpretation of findings (e.g. co‑design or patient and public involvement and engagement [PPIE]), where reported.
  • Equity‑relevant population characteristics, including whether studies report participant characteristics aligned with the PROGRESS‑Plus framework (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, plus additional factors such as age, disability or other relevant characteristics), where reported.

The extracted data will be charted in a table to enable comparison across studies and to support the development of a narrative synthesis. The charting process will be iterative: the data extraction form may be refined as the team becomes more familiar with the evidence, in line with scoping review guidance [14]. Any modifications will be documented, and a revised extraction form will be included in the Appendix.
Stage 5: Synthesising and reporting results (Not started)
The aim of this scoping review is to map the range and nature of reported barriers and facilitators influencing cancer treatment receipt, time‑to‑treatment, and treatment adherence within the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The synthesis will primarily involve a structured descriptive and narrative mapping of findings across the included studies. This approach is appropriate given the anticipated heterogeneity in study designs, cancer types, treatment modalities and populations.

Findings will be organised thematically to reflect the different types of barriers and facilitators identified (e.g., psychological, social, practical, organisational, communication‑related, or system‑level). Tables and narrative summaries will be used to describe key characteristics of the evidence base, including study design, participant groups, cancer types, treatment modalities, treatment stages examined and contextual features of the healthcare setting. Where multiple studies examine similar treatment stages and modalities within the same cancer type and report comparable findings, a more in-depth thematic synthesis may be undertaken for those subsets of evidence. However, given the expected diversity of the literature, it is anticipated that synthesis will predominantly focus on mapping patterns and areas of convergence or divergence across studies.

To support an equity-focussed interpretation of the evidence, synthesis will also consider how reported barriers and facilitators vary according to population characteristics described within the included studies. Where possible, findings will be examined in relation to PROGRESS-Plus characteristics (e.g. age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, disability or place of residence), with attention to whether similar barriers or facilitators are reported across different groups or contexts. Given the nature of available evidence, this will be a descriptive and comparative exercise rather than a formal intersectional analysis.

To ensure transparency, reproducibility and methodological rigour, the review will be reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‑ScR) [21]. A PRISMA‑ScR flow diagram will be used to summarise the study selection process. Given the iterative nature of scoping reviews, the search strategy may be updated or supplemented through backward and forward citation searching to ensure that all relevant studies are identified and that the synthesis reflects the most current available evidence at the time of publication.
Stage 6: Consultation with stakeholders (Not started)
This review forms part of a broader programme of research guided by stakeholder involvement from inception. Stakeholders will include healthcare professionals involved in cancer treatment and service delivery (e.g. oncologists, specialist nurses and allied health professionals), as well as patient and carer contributors with lived experience of cancer treatment. Clinical stakeholders will be identified through existing research projects and professional and clinical networks. Patient and carer contributors will be involved through an established patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group linked to the research programme.

Engagement with stakeholders will take place at key stages of the review. We will seek early input from the PPIE group and clinical stakeholders to inform the focus and framing of the review, including the relevance and clarity of concepts, such as treatment receipt, time-to treatment and treatment adherence. Following data synthesis, stakeholders will be consulted to support interpretation of the findings, including reflection on whether identified barriers and facilitators resonate with lived experience and clinical practice, and to assist in identifying any gaps in the evidence.

Stakeholders will also contribute to shaping dissemination strategies, with a particular focus on ensuring that findings are accessible and meaningful to patients, carers, clinicians, service providers and policy makers. The nature, timing and contribution of stakeholder and PPIE involvement will be documented and reported transparently in the final review.
Dissemination plan
The authors will submit a manuscript for publication in a peer reviewed journal and present their findings at conferences. In addition, we will co develop accessible dissemination materials with patient and public involvement contributors (e.g. infographics, plain language summaries and short digital content such as videos) to support communication of findings to patients, carers and wider public audiences.

Appendices
Download Appendices.docxAppendices.docx73.7KB

Protocol references
  1. Office for National Statistics (2020). Leading Causes of Death, UK: 2001 to 2018. Available from: https://backup.ons.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/03/Leading-causes-of-death-UK-2001-to-2018.pdf (Accessed: 09/03/2026).
  2. Hanna TP, King WD, Thibodeau S, Jalink M, Paulin GA, Harvey Jones E, O’Sullivan DE, Booth CM, Sullivan R, Aggarwal A. (2020) Mortality due to cancer treatment delay: systematic review and meta analysis. BMJ. 371:m4087. doi:10.1136/bmj.m4087
  3. Cone, E.B. Marchese, M. Paciotti, M. Nguyen, D.D. Nabi, J. Cole, A.J. Molina, G. Molina, R.L. Minami, C.A. Mucci, L.A. Kibel, A.S. & Trinh, Q. (2020) Assessment of time-to-treatment initiation and survival in a cohort of patients with common cancers. JAMA Network Open. 3. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.30072.
  4. Hanna, T.P. King, W.D. Thibodeau, S. Jalink, M. Paulin, G.A. Harvey-Jones, E. O’Sullivan, D.E. Booth, C.M. Sullivan, R. & Aggarwal, A. (2020) Mortality due to cancer treatment delay: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 371. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m4087
  5. Collaço N, Lippiett KA, Wright D, Brodie H, Winter J, Richardson A, Foster C. (2024) Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care: a scoping review. Supportive Care in Cancer. 32:120. doi:10.1007/s00520-023-08278-1.
  6. Leahy D. Donnelly A. & Irwin K, D’Alton P. (2021) Barriers and facilitators to accessing cancer care for people with significant mental health difficulties: A qualitative review and narrative synthesis. Psycho Oncology. 30(12):2012–2022. DOI: 10.1002/pon.5848
  7. Hendren, S. Chin, N. Fisher, S. Winters, P. Griggs, J. Mohile, S. & Fiscella, K. (2011) Patients’ barriers to receipt of cancer care, and factors associated with needing more assistance from a patient navigator. Journal of the National Medical Association. 103(8):701–710. DOI: 10.1016/S0027-9684(15)30409-0
  8. Dhaval Patel Z. Al Refaie, W.B. Suneja, G. Bejanyan, N. & Merkow, R. (2024) Barriers to accessing cancer care from patients’ perspective: a single cancer center experience. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 42. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2024.42.16suppl.e13520
  9. Banegas, M.P. Dickerson, J.F. Kent, E.E. Rechis, R. Beckjord, E.B. & Nutt, S. (2018) Exploring barriers to the receipt of necessary medical care among cancer survivors under age 65 years. Journal of Cancer Survivorship. 12:28–37. DOI: 10.1007/s11764‑017‑0640‑1
  10. Singal, A.G. Tiro, J.A. Murphy. C.C. Marrero. J.A. McCallister. K. Kono, Y. Pedersen, K. Nehra, M. Yopp, A. Parikh, N.D. & Rich, N.E. (2020) Patient reported barriers are associated with receipt of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance in a multicenter cohort of patients with cirrhosis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 19:987–995.e1.
  11. Ettehad, D., Mohammed, H., Bailey, J.V., Schloss, D., Walters, K., Merriel, S.W.D., Kinnaird, W., Shaw, G., Kirby, M., Gopal, D.P., Huang, Q., Baker, H., Plackett, R. & Schartau, P. (2025) Barriers and facilitators to prostate cancer healthcare in Black men in the UK: from diagnosis to survivorship. Journal of Cancer Survivorship. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-025-01956-5
  12. Donkor, A. Luckett. T, Aranda, S. & Phillips, J. (2018) Barriers and facilitators to implementation of cancer treatment and palliative care strategies in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Int J Public Health 63, 1047–1057 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-018-1142-2
  13. Edwards, D. D. Sakellariou. & S. Anstey. (2020). Barriers to, and facilitators of, access to cancer services and experiences of cancer care for adults with a physical disability: a mixed methods systematic review. Disability and Health Journal 13(1):100844.10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.100844
  14. Arksey, H. & O’Malley, L. (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 8(1):19–32. DOI: 10.1080/1364557032000119616
  15. Underwood, S. Oguzman, E. Cole, J. Goldacre, R. Patel, N. Davies, D. Friedemann Smith, C. Wright, F.L. Lacey, B. Nicholson, B.D. Shepperd, S. & Lawler, M. & Morris, E.J.A. (2025) Cancer inequalities in the United Kingdom and the data used to measure them: a scoping review. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe. 52:101246. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101246
  16. Safari, W.C. Gravenhorst, K. Leyrat, C. Shimizu, K. Smith, M.J. Aggarwal, A. & Maringe, C. (2025) Characteristics of interventions aimed at reducing inequalities along the cancer continuum: a scoping review. International Journal of Cancer. 157(6):1043–1054. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.35478
  17. Bramer, W.M. Rethlefsen, M.L. Kleijnen, J. & Franco, O.H. (2017) Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Systematic Reviews. 6:245. DOI: 10.1186/s13643 017 0644 z
  18. UK Government Legislations. (2010). Equity Act 2010. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents. (Accessed: 09/03/2026).
  19. UK Government. (2011) The national cancer strategy. Improving Outcomes: a strategy for cancer. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-national-cancer-strategy. (Accessed: 09/03/2026).
  20. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5:210. doi:10.1186/s13643 016 0384 4.
  21. Tricco, A.C. Lillie, E. Zarin, W. O’Brien, K.K. Colquhoun, H. Levac, D. Moher, D. Peters, M.D.J. Horsley, T. Weeks, L. Hempel, S. Akl, E.A. Chang, C. McGowan, J. Stewart, L. Hartling, L. Aldcroft, A. Wilson, M.G. Garritty, C. Lewin, S. Godfrey, C.M. Macdonald, M.T. Langlois, E.V. Soares Weiser, K. Moriarty, J. Clifford, T. Tunçalp, Ö. & Straus, S.E. (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 169:467–473. DOI: 10.7326/M18 0850