ReviewAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2025
Current Status of Implementation of Cancer Screening Programme in India: A Review of Policies and Practice.
Review in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Burden, Patterns and Challenges of Cancer Among Tribal Communities in India.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Review
- Article
- Cancer screening uptake and tobacco-alcohol use among women in Uttarakhand: A district-wise analysis from the 5th National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5).The Indian journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Strengthening colonoscopy screening in primary care: A preventive imperative before the coming surge.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCancer is becoming a leading cause of death and disability across the globe and India too has a high burden of disease with poor outcomes. The national cancer screening program has been rolled out since 2010 but has not yielded the desired results so far. The objective of the present review is to perform an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the cancer screening component of the National Program - Non Communicable Disease (NP-NCD) program based on a scoping review of policies, organization, and status of implementation of the program at the primary and secondary levels and also on observations from field experience of the program managers and other health professionals from selected states in India.
methodsA mixed methodology was used to document the status of the implementation of the ongoing cancer screening program in India. The methodology included a literature review, observation of the frontline health professionals and an in-depth discussion with those in managerial capacity at the health facilities or the screening program.
resultsCancer screening is a complex public health initiative requiring a highly organized framework for effective implementation. Although India has implemented a comprehensive Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) screening program since 2010, the results have been minimal. The latest National Family Health Survey (NHFS 2019-21) reported that among the female population aged 30 to 49 years, only 1.9% and 0.9% were ever screened for cervical cancer and breast cancer respectively. The proportion of 30-49 year-old males reported to be ever screened for oral cancer was only 1.2%. Tamil Nadu and Kerala showed significantly better screening participation compared to other states in the country.
conclusionCancer screening is a complex public health initiative requiring a highly organized framework for effective implementation. The Ayushman Bharat comprehensive primary healthcare service package and plan to deliver cancer screening through the Health and Wellness centers (AB-HWCs) is a good opportunity to revamp the program.
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.