ArticlePloS one2025
A scoping review of the levels, implementation strategies, enablers, and barriers to cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening among migrant populations in selected English-speaking high-income countries.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adherence to Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Women in Spain: Evidence from the 2023 Spanish Health Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A global scoping review of interventions to increase participation in screening programmes for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer between 2016 and 2025.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening and Mortality Trends in the United States Over 25 Years: A Story of Success and Inequity.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Cancer screening discrepancies among Black people in Canada: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Rural Eastern Cape, South Africa: Clinical, Bacteriological, and Programmatic Predictors of Poor Treatment Outcomes.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Human Papillomavirus Infection and Cervical Cytology Among Vulnerable Women in Rome, Italy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Sex-specific differences in healthcare utilization and preventive service uptake between immigrant and native-born populations in Spain: a matched analysis of the 2023 national health survey.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practice in breast cancer early detection: evidence from a nationally stratified study of healthcare providers in Jordan.Frontiers in public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer remains one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide with colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers accounting for significant proportion of preventable deaths. Early screening, diagnosis, and treatment could prevent many of these deaths. However, migrants face persistent disparities in the screening, early diagnosis, and treatment of these cancers. This study synthesizes evidence on cancer screening uptake, implementation strategies, as well as their enablers and barriers among migrants in English-speaking high-income countries (Australia, the USA, the UK, Canada, and New Zealand).
methodsWe conducted a scoping review of studies published in any language between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2024. Studies were retrieved from four databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. Search terms were developed based on four domains: types of cancer (colorectal, cervical, and breast), migrant populations, screening coverage, and country of residence. The uptake of cancer screening among migrants in selected countries was determined. A thematic analysis was conducted to analyze the data and identify key themes related to the implementation of cancer screening strategies, as well as their enablers and barriers.
resultsA total of 80 studies were included in the review. Migrants exhibited varied levels of utilization of cancer screening such as cervical cancer (41% - 84%), breast cancer (24%-87%), and colorectal cancer (4%-55%). Four themes related to the implementation of cancer screening strategies were identified: i) culturally tailored health education and communication, ii) trust-building initiatives with providers and health systems, iii) family and community support for acculturation and engagement, iv) awareness and knowledge on increased risk perception. Several barriers to the implementation of cancer screening strategies were identified, including lack of insurance, transportation challenges, difficulty in speaking and understanding English, inflexible work hours of health services, cultural taboos, stigma, poverty, and undocumented (illegal) status of migrants. Enablers of the implementation of cancer screening strategies included faith-based messaging on cancer screening, community partnerships, home-based fecal immunochemical test kits, availability of after-hours services, gender-concordant care, social networks, acculturation, and trust-building.
conclusionsThe uptake of cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal) varied and had low among migrants (e.g., refugees, culturally and linguistically diverse populations). Targeted, culturally tailored approaches, expanding interpreter services, and fostering cross-sector collaborations (e.g., linking screenings to cultural events) are essential for addressing disparities in cancer screening among migrants. Culturally sensitive and adaptive, equity-focussed interventions on cancer screening should be prioritized by ensuring sustained funding, disaggregated data collection on the uptake of cancers screening and design and implementation of programs on targeting diverse population groups.
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.