ArticleMedicine2016
Participation in cancer screening among female migrants and non-migrants in Germany: A cross-sectional study on the role of demographic and socioeconomic factors.
Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inequalities in health care utilization among migrants and non-migrants in Germany: a systematic review.International journal for equity in health · 2018Pooled it
- The role of health literacy in the association between nationality and health status among university students: a cross-sectional study.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Breast cancer in immigrant women in Europe and Italy: epidemiology, disparities, and pathways to equity.Oncology reviews · 2026Review
- Sociodemographic inequalities in breast cancer screening attendance in Germany following the implementation of an Organized Screening Program: Scoping Review.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Investigating associated factors of primary and specialist health care utilization among people with selected nationalities: results of a multilingual survey in two German federal states.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Utilization of preventive care among migrants and non-migrants in Germany: results from the representative cross-sectional study 'German health interview and examination survey for adults (DEGS1)'.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2021Article
- Socioeconomic deprivation and cancer survival in a metropolitan area: An analysis of cancer registry data from Hamburg, Germany.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2021Article
- Utilization of cervical cancer screening among migrants and non-migrants in Germany: results from a large-scale population survey.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Cancer information seeking and scanning behavior among Nepalese migrants in Japan and its association with preventive behavior.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Barriers to cervical cancer screening faced by immigrants: a registry-based study of 1.4 million women in Norway.European journal of public health · 2017Article
- Oral health behaviour in migrant and non-migrant adults in Germany: the utilization of regular dental check-ups.BMC oral health · 2017Article
- Inequalities in Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake Between Chinese Migrant Women and Local Women: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In many European countries, migrants utilize cancer screening less often than non-migrants. In Germany, in contrast, higher rates of utilization among migrants as compared with non-migrants have been reported. The role of demographic and socioeconomic factors potentially confounding the association between migration status and participation in screening, however, could not be studied. The present study aims to investigate the utilization of cancer screening among migrant and nonmigrant women residing in Germany, adjusting for potential confounders.We used self-reported information from women surveyed on whether they have ever participated in screening for cancer (n = 11,709). The data was collected as part of a cross-sectional representative telephone survey conducted by the Robert Koch-Institute in 2010. We distinguished between three groups of women: (1) respondents of non-German nationality, those who had immigrated to Germany after their birth or those who have two foreign-born parents ("migrants with two-sided migration background"), (2) respondents who only have one foreign-born parent ("migrant with one-sided migration background"), and (3) all others ("non-migrants").To account for confounders, logistic regression analysis was performed. Only individuals proficient in German were included in the survey, allowing to control for a bias arising from poor language proficiency.84.9% of nonmigrant women, 82.1% of women with a one-sided, and 70.5% of women with a two-sided migration background had utilized screening for cancer at least once in their lifetime before the survey. The adjusted odds ratios (OR) as compared with nonmigrant women were 0.99 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.77-1.27) and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.47-0.64), respectively.The study shows that migrant women with a two-sided migration background residing in Germany utilize screening for cancer less often than nonmigrant women-independently of demographic and socioeconomic factors. This is in line with findings from other countries. Likely, barriers that migrant women encounter limit them from taking informed choices. These barriers need to be identified and appropriate measures aiming to enhance informed decision making must be implemented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.