Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36707816›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2023

Interventions to reduce cancer screening inequities: the perspective and role of patients, advocacy groups, and empowerment organizations.

Afua Richardson-Parry, Carole Baas, Shaantanu Donde, Bianca Ferraiolo, Maimah Karmo, Zorana Maravic, Lars Münter, Ignacio Ricci-Cabello, Mitchell Silva, Stacey Tinianov and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Cervical Cancer Screening and Prevention among Latinas in the United States among a Network of Community Health Centers.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. Cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of the Fear of Cancer Scale.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Effectiveness ofCancers · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Paving the way for Alzheimer's disease blood-based biomarkers in primary care.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

13 authors at 10 institutions in 6 countries.

Afua Richardson-ParryViatris Global Healthcare UK, Building 4, Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, London, AL10 9UL, UK. afua.richardson-parry@viatris.com.
Carole BaasAlamo Breast Cancer Foundation, 909 Midland Creek Drive, Southlake, TX, 76092, USA.
Shaantanu DondeViatris Global Healthcare, Building 4, Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, London, AL10 9UL, UK.
Bianca FerraioloCittadinanzattiva - Active Citizenship Network, Rue Philippe Le Bon 46, 1000, Brussels, Belgium.
Maimah KarmoTigerlily Foundation, 42020 Village Center Plaza, #120-156, Stone Ridge, 20105, USA.
Zorana MaravicDigestive Cancers Europe, Rue de la Loi 235/27, 1040, Brussels, Belgium.
Lars MünterDanish Committee for Health Education, Classensgade 71, 5, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ignacio Ricci-CabelloBalearic Islands Health Research Institute (IdISBa) and CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), C/ Escola Graduada 3, 07002, Palma, Balearic Islands, Spain.
Mitchell SilvaEsperity, Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs 30, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Stacey TinianovAdvocates for Collaborative Education, 824 Windsor Street, Santa Cruz, CA, 95062, USA.
Jose M ValderasNational University of Singapore, 1E Kent Ridge Road, NUHS Tower Block, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Seth WoodruffViatris, 235 E42nd Street, New York, 10017, USA.
Joris van VugtViatris, Aalsterweg 172, 5644 RH, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Tris Pharma (United States) · USAdvocates for Youth · USCordis Automation (Netherlands) · NLDanish Medical Association · DKEast Foundation · USEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer · BEEuropean Society of Intensive Care Medicine · BEHealth Research Institute of the Balearic Islands · ESNational University Health System · SGTigerlily Foundation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth inequities lead to low rates of cancer screening in certain populations, such as low-income and ethnic minority groups. Different interventions to address this have been developed with mixed results. However, interventions are not always developed in collaboration with the people they target. The aim of our article is to present the viewpoint of patients, survivors, advocates, and lay persons on interventions to increase cancer screening from a health inequity perspective.

methodsWe prepared talking points to guide discussions between coauthors, who included representatives from nine patient and survivor advocacy groups, organizations working for citizen/patient empowerment, and health equity experts. Perspectives and opinions were first collected through video conferencing meetings and a first draft of the paper was prepared. All authors, read through, revised, and discussed the contents to reach an agreement on the final perspectives to be presented.

resultsSeveral themes were identified: it is important to not view screening as a discrete event; barriers underlying an individual's access and willingness to undergo screening span across a continuum; individually tailored interventions are likely to be more effective than a one-size fits-all approach because they may better accommodate the person's personal beliefs, knowledge, behaviors, and preferences; targeting people who are unknown to medical services and largely unreachable is a major challenge; including professional patient advocacy groups and relevant lay persons in the cocreation of interventions at all stages of design, implementation, and evaluation is essential along with relevant stakeholders (healthcare professionals, researchers, local government and community organizations etc).

conclusionsInterventions to address cancer screening inequity currently do not adequately solve the issue, especially from the viewpoint of patients, survivors, and lay persons. Several core pathways should be focused on when designing and implementing interventions: advancing individually tailored interventions; digital tools and social media; peer-based approaches; empowerment; addressing policy and system barriers; better design of interventions; and collaboration, including the involvement of patients and patient advocacy organizations.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsEthnicityHumansMinority GroupsOrganizationsBreast cancerCervical cancerColorectal cancerHealth equityMammographyOncologyPap testRaceSocioeconomic status

Identifiers

PMID36707816
PMCPMC9880917
OpenAlexW4318206247

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.