ArticleBMC health services research2024
Access to colorectal cancer screening for Pakistani immigrants in Norway - a qualitative study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Upregulation of miR-32 in tissue and plasma and its association with PTEN expression in colorectal cancer.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Effect of reminder phone calls in the language of origin on colorectal cancer screening participation among immigrants in Norway: a randomised controlled trial.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Language as a barrier to colorectal cancer screening in flanders: an ecological study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Norwegian colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program started in May 2022. Inequalities in CRC screening participation are a challenge, and we expect that certain groups, such as immigrants, are at risk of non-participation. Prior to the start of the national screening program, a pilot study showed lower participation rates in CRC screening among immigrants from Pakistan. These immigrants are a populous group with a long history in Norway and yet have a relatively low participation rate also in other cancer screening programs. The purpose of this study was to identify and explore perspectives and factors influencing CRC screening participation among immigrants from Pakistan in Norway. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study we used a qualitative study design and conducted 12 individual interviews with Pakistani immigrants aged between 50 and 65 years. The participants varied in terms of gender, age, education, work, residence time in Norway and familiarity with the Norwegian language and culture. We performed thematic analysis with health literacy as a theoretical framework to understand Pakistani immigrants' perspectives on CRC screening.
resultsWe identified four main themes: Health-related knowledge, the health care system, screening, and social factors. Within these themes we identified several factors that affect Pakistani immigrants' accessibility to CRC screening. These factors included knowledge of the causes and development of cancer, sources of health-related information, the general practitioner's role, understanding of screening and the intention behind it, language skills and religious beliefs.
conclusionThere are many factors influencing Pakistani immigrants' decision of participation in CRC screening. The roles of the general practitioner and adult children are particularly important. Key elements to improve accessibility to CRC screening and enable informed participation for Pakistani immigrants are measures that improve personal and organizational health literacy.
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.