ArticlePloS one2021
Cervical cancer risk and access: Utilizing three statistical tools to assess Haitian women in South Florida.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Li pa gen la vwa o chapit": Gender-Based Violence and Sexual and Reproductive Health Consequences Experienced by Migrants and Asylum-Seekers Amid the Haitian Humanitarian Crisis.Violence against women · 2026Article
- Contextualizing HPV vaccination intention among Haitian immigrant and migrant women through exploring cultural worldviews and affective risk perception: a qualitative study.Ethnicity & health · 2025Article
- Structural Racism in Cervical Cancer Care and Survival Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Inequities and Barriers.Current epidemiology reports · 2025Review
- Interventions for HIV prevention and treatment among people of Haitian descent: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Social support and cervical cancer screening among sub-Saharan African immigrant (SAI) women.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although decreasing rates of cervical cancer in the U.S. are attributable to health policy, immigrant women, particularly Haitians, experience disproportionate disease burden related to delayed detection and treatment. However, risk prediction and dynamics of access remain largely underexplored and unresolved in this population. This study seeks to assess cervical cancer risk and access of unscreened Haitian women. Extracted and merged from two studies, this sample includes n = 346 at-risk Haitian women in South Florida, the largest U.S. enclave of Haitians (ages 30-65 and unscreened in the previous three years). Three approaches (logistic regression [LR]; classification and regression trees [CART]; and random forest [RF]) were employed to assess the association between screening history and sociodemographic variables. LR results indicated women who reported US citizenship (OR = 3.22, 95% CI = 1.52-6.84), access to routine care (OR = 2.11, 95%CI = 1.04-4.30), and spent more years in the US (OR = 1.01, 95%CI = 1.00-1.03) were significantly more likely to report previous screening. CART results returned an accuracy of 0.75 with a tree initially splitting on women who were not citizens, then on 43 or fewer years in the U.S., and without access to routine care. RF model identified U.S. years, citizenship, and access to routine care as variables of highest importance indicated by greatest mean decreases in Gini index. The model was .79 accurate (95% CI = 0.74-0.84). This multi-pronged analysis identifies previously undocumented barriers to health screening for Haitian women. Recent US immigrants without citizenship or perceived access to routine care may be at higher risk for disease due to barriers in accessing U.S. health-systems.
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.