ArticleBMC public health2025
The dual burden of stigma: a scoping review of its impact on colorectal cancer patients and screening participants.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Improving Breast Cancer Outcomes by Enhanced Activities in Early Detection and Diagnosis: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials in High-Income Contexts With Universal Healthcare Coverage.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterPooled it
- From Mechanisms to Manifestations: A Scoping Review Exploring Cancer-Related Discrimination.Psycho-oncology · 2026Article
- Best evidence summary of screening and management of stigma in patients with colorectal cancer and stomas.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Stigma, stoma acceptance, quality of life among patients with colorectal cancer intestinal ostomy: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Bidirectional longitudinal associations between low anterior resection syndrome and stigma in patients with postoperative LARS: a cross-lagged panel study.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe stigma caused by colorectal cancer (CRC) and CRC screening affects CRC prevention and treatment. Based on the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework (HSDF), this review analyzed the influencing factors and mechanism of stigma in CRC.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and CNKI. The RoBANS tool was used for quantitative studies, and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research tool was used for qualitative studies. Data were integrated on the basis of the HSDF.
resultsAmong the 15 included studies, 10 focused on CRC patients, and 5 focused on screening participants. These studies covered driving factors (14 studies), facilitating factors (11 studies), stigma "marking" (13 studies), individual experiences (12 studies), and social practices (13 studies). Additionally, a total of 3150 participants were included in the studies, comprising 2876 patients and 274 screening participants. Studies have shown that the factors influencing CRC-related stigma differ across different groups. CRC patients experience disease-related stigma and survival-related stigma, such as ostomy discrimination and employment discrimination. The screening of participants involves invasive examinations and asymptomatic population screening. The above stigmatization may lead to negative consequences such as deterioration in quality of life, decreased treatment compliance, delayed screening, and psychological distress (anxiety, depression). This study revealed that CRC-related stigma may be influenced by age, gender, religion, culture and the economy. Through improving social support and health policy, the negative effects of stigmatization can be gradually eliminated.
conclusionCRC-related stigma has measurable impacts on patient well-being and care-seeking. Although some studies suggest potential strategies to reduce stigma, further research is needed to evaluate effective interventions and their role in promoting 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.