Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34885190›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

An Intersectional Perspective on the Utilization of Cervical Cancer Screening among Migrants. A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Survey Data from Austria.

Patrick Brzoska, Diana Wahidie, Yüce Yilmaz-Aslan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Patrick BrzoskaHealth Services Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, 58455 Witten, Germany.
Diana WahidieHealth Services Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, 58455 Witten, Germany.
Yüce Yilmaz-AslanHealth Services Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, 58455 Witten, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In most European countries, migrant women have lower rates of cervical cancer screening utilization than non-migrant women. While studies have illustrated that disparities can be partially explained by social determinants, they usually did not take into account the heterogeneity of the migrant population in terms of cultural background or country of origin. Applying an intersectional approach and using 2019 data from a representative survey from Austria on 6228 women aged 20-69 years, the present study examines differences in the utilization of cervical cancer screening in the five largest migrant groups (i.e., individuals with a nationality from or born in a Yugoslav successor state, Turkey, Romania, Hungary, or Germany) residing in Austria. By means of a multivariable analysis, amongst others adjusted for socioeconomic and health-related determinants, it is illustrated that particularly Turkish migrant women have a lower utilization than the Austrian majority population (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.60; 95% confidential interval (CI): 0.40-0.91), while no significant differences between the majority population and other groups of migrants became evident. The findings are indicative of the heterogeneity of migrants and likely result from different obstacles some groups of migrants encounter in the health system. This heterogeneity must be taken into account in order to support informed decision-making and to ensure adequate preventive care.

Indexed as

Austriacervical cancerheterogeneitymigrantsscreeningsurveyutilization

Identifiers

PMID34885190
PMCPMC8657384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.