ArticleBMJ open2024
Knowledge and attitudes towards cervical cancer and screening among migrant women: a qualitative study in Portugal.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Cervical Cancer Screening Beliefs Questionnaire: Development and Psychometric Assessment With Immigrants in Australia.Western journal of nursing research · 2026Article
- Cancer Screening and Prevention in MENA and Mediterranean Populations: A Multi-Level Analysis of Barriers, Knowledge Gaps, and Interventions Across Indigenous and Diaspora Communities.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Mendelian randomization reveals immune cell composition as a key determinant of cervical cancer prognosis.Discover oncology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the perceptions of migrant women, healthcare professionals and community workers regarding migrant women's knowledge and attitudes about cervical cancer (CC) and screening and how these influence cervical cancer screening (CCS) uptake.
designQualitative study with seven focus groups, using a semistructured guide.
settingFive focus groups were conducted online and two in community associations in Lisbon, Portugal.
participantsThis study included 23 migrant women, 12 healthcare professionals and 10 community workers.
resultsA lack of knowledge and negative attitudes towards screening among migrants were discussed as important factors leading to a lower CCS uptake. For participants, many migrant women are unaware of the disease and CCS. Feelings of uneasiness related to screening and reservation from their husbands towards consultations underlie negative attitudes towards CCS. Disparities among migrant women regarding uptake of CCS rooted on sociocultural factors were highlighted, with women from African origin and older tending to engage less. Healthcare professionals were identified as the preferred source of information; nevertheless, difficulties in delivering information on sensitive topics were reported by professionals. Additionally, participants agreed that peers and social networks may play a role in promoting screening among communities.
conclusionsHealthcare professionals and community actors are paramount to promote CCS among migrant women, especially through culturally adapted awareness interventions and health-promoting activities engaging local communities and social networks of women. Training on cross-cultural communication skills of healthcare professionals may contribute to improving migrant women's knowledge and uptake of CCS.
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.