ReviewBJC reports2025
Cancer care disparities among patients with limited English proficiency: challenges and strategies for equity.
Review in BJC reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Association of English language proficiency and breast cancer oncologic outcomes.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2026Article
- Lessons from the field: culturally grounded approaches to recruiting Chinese American immigrant cancer patients to psycho-oncology trials.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Health beliefs and lung cancer screening uptake among eligible Asian Americans in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Cultural, Societal, and Behavioral Contributors to Delays in Seeking Care for Postmenopausal Bleeding Among Disaggregated Populations of Black Women.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Cancer care barriers and interventions among immigrant workers: an evidence map and practice-oriented review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Cancer statistics for Hispanic/Latino people, 2026.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansArticle
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
As the population of individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) continues to rise in the United States, language barriers have become an increasingly important yet underrecognized driver of disparities in cancer care. This review aims to synthesize current evidence on how LEP affects the cancer care continuum and to offer actionable strategies to promote equity. We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature spanning communication, diagnosis, treatment, outcomes, prevention, research participation, and policy related to LEP populations in oncology. LEP is associated with poorer cancer outcomes, including delayed diagnosis, lower treatment adherence, decreased access to supportive services, and reduced quality of life. These disparities stem from multilevel communication barriers, underuse of professional interpretation, cultural discordance, and limited institutional support for language-concordant care. LEP patients are also underrepresented in cancer research due to language-based exclusion criteria, inadequate translation resources, and provider burden. A multifaceted framework is needed to address LEP-related disparities in oncology. Key strategies include expanding language-concordant care teams, improving interpreter and translation services, designing inclusive research protocols, and embedding language equity into institutional safety culture and policy. Addressing these disparities is a clinical, ethical, and public health imperative requiring systemic investment and leadership.
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.