Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40175999›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2025

Interventions, programmes and resources that address culturally and linguistically diverse consumer and carers' cancer information needs: a mixed methods systematic review.

Lisa Whitehead, Deborah Kirk, Pelden Chejor, Weiting Liu, Minh Nguyen, Caroline Balczer, Charlene Lan, Melissa Evans

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Faith, Culture, and Cancer: A Qualitative Study Exploring Muslim Women's Perspectives on Clinical Trials in the United Kingdom.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Experiences of racially, ethnically, sexual- and gender-minoritized adolescents and young adults with cancer in the Canadian health care system.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Lisa WhiteheadSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia. l.whitehead@ecu.edu.au.
Deborah KirkSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia.
Pelden ChejorSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia.
Weiting LiuSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia.
Minh NguyenSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia.
Caroline BalczerSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia.
Charlene LanDepartment of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Melissa EvansDepartment of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCulturally and linguistically diverse (CaLD) consumers and carers have been identified as experiencing high levels of unmet needs relating to information and support across the cancer journey. This review identified and evaluated the effectiveness of strategies to meet the cancer information needs of consumers and carers from CaLD backgrounds.

methodsThis review followed Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for systematic reviews. Databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL Ultimate, PsycINFO and AMED, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and GreyNet. Published and unpublished studies between 2013 - May 2024 on interventions, programmes or resources developed for adults (aged 18 years and over) from CaLD communities in relation to cancer prevention, cancer treatment or life after cancer were reviewed for inclusion. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023451557).

resultsOne hundred and twenty papers were included in the review. The majority were quasi-experimental studies (n = 52), followed by randomised controlled trials (n = 38) and qualitative studies (n = 25). The populations represented in the review included Latino (n = 47), Chinese (n = 28), Asian (n = 19), Korean (n = 16), and Vietnamese communities (n = 7). Most studies focused on prevention activities (n = 89) with a smaller number focused on active treatment (n = 6) and life after cancer (n = 20). Most studies focused on breast cancer (n = 37), followed by cervical cancer (n = 21). Engagement with community members was identified as an important requirement to develop and adapt interventions that were culturally acceptable, feasible and relevant to meet the communities' needs. The majority of interventions demonstrated a positive impact on the primary outcome measured. No studies reported on the experiences of consumers and carers from CaLD backgrounds in the development of interventions, programmes and resources to address their cancer information needs.

conclusionsThis review supports a tailored approach to develop information, resources and interventions that leverage community resources and expertise to ensure that they are accessible and relevant to CaLD communities. The onus for researchers and clinicians is the creation of information, resources and interventions that are both accessible in terms of language and comprehension and are culturally relevant.

Indexed as

CaregiversCultural DiversityNeoplasmsHumansLanguageNeeds AssessmentCancerCarerCulturally and linguistically diverseInformation needsPatient

Identifiers

PMID40175999
PMCPMC11967065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.