ArticleHealth promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals2025
Co-Designed Culturally Tailored Cancer Screening Promotion Program With Chinese-Australian: Using a Community Partnership Approach.
Article in Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strengthening Preventive Care for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse People in Australia: The Case for Community Health Worker Programs.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026Article
- Barbershop-based lung health navigation for Black men: A feasibility study.Preventive medicine reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
issue addressedDespite national cancer screening programs in Australia, people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, particularly Chinese-Australians, demonstrate significantly lower participation rates in cancer screening. Cultural beliefs, language barriers and limited health literacy contribute to this disparity, highlighting the need for culturally tailored interventions.
methodsA culturally tailored cancer awareness education and screening promotion program was developed and implemented using a community partnership approach. A consumer engagement panel comprising Chinese community members, cancer survivors and community leaders was established to guide program development and implementation. Twenty-four educational sessions were delivered in Cantonese or Mandarin to 821 Chinese-Australians. The program's effectiveness was evaluated using pre- and post-intervention questionnaires assessing cancer knowledge, screening awareness and screening intentions.
resultsSignificant improvements were observed in participants' awareness of screening practices (bowel screening: 50.1% to 100%; breast awareness: 78.8% to 100%; mammogram: 65.8% to 95.6%; cervical screening: 86.5% to 96.9%). Screening intentions within 6 months increased substantially across all cancer types (bowel: 7.4% to 37%; breast awareness: 21.2% to 77.6%; mammogram: 18.9% to 47.7%; cervical: 39.8% to 73.1%). About 9 out of 13 questions regarding cancer knowledge and beliefs showed significant improvement post-intervention.
conclusionsThe community partnership approach and culturally tailored cancer education effectively improved cancer screening awareness and intentions among Chinese-Australians. SO WHAT?: This study provides a successful model for developing and implementing culturally sensitive cancer screening promotion programmes, which can be adapted for other CALD communities to address health disparities in cancer screening participation.
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.