ArticleBMJ open2025
Global therapeutic mobilities and cancer: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Physicians' Perspectives on Access to Innovative Oncology Therapies: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Bulgaria.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionResearch on therapeutic mobility is abundant but the field of cancer has not yet been investigated thoroughly. This scoping review aims to examine the existing evidence on global therapeutic mobility and cancer, providing a comprehensive overview of the subject.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodological guidelines. We developed a comprehensive search strategy and discussed it with the research team. We searched for peer-reviewed papers on Medline, Embase, ERIC and American Psychological Association via the Dialogue interface and Google Scholar and CAIRN bibliographic database for peer-reviewed articles. We also included grey literature, such as unpublished work and relevant reports from Érudit. We considered studies that employed quantitative or qualitative methods.
resultsAmong the 1615 references initially selected, 767 duplicates were excluded. Then, 849 studies were screened on title and abstract and 800 were excluded as they did not meet inclusion criteria. 49 studies were fully screened and 21 were excluded as they did not meet inclusion criteria based on full-text assessment. Ultimately, 28 references were included in the data synthesis. This scoping review has shown that publications on therapeutic mobilities have multiplied in recent years, with a turning point in 2019. A range of academic disciplines and research methodologies are currently employed to describe them. A significant proportion of fieldwork is concentrated in Asia, Africa, Europe and North America. Despite the heterogeneity of the approaches and fields, there are certain common features that emerge: first, the decision to migrate for healthcare is primarily made by the patient themselves and is perceived by them as being non-choice; second, the family plays a central role at all stages of the migration; and third, the migration has a catastrophic impact in terms of social and financial burden.
conclusionIn conclusion, this scoping review highlights the underexplored relationship between global therapeutic mobility and cancer, emphasising the need for increased research efforts to understand the global dynamics of cancer care mobility.
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.