ArticleBMJ global health2025
Participation in cervical cancer screening among migrants and non-migrants in primary healthcare in Lisbon: a register-based study.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
introductionCervical cancer screening is a critical preventive measure to reduce the burden of cervical cancer. Yet, disparities persist worldwide, particularly among migrant populations. This study examined cervical cancer screening participation among migrant and non-migrant women enrolled in the primary healthcare centres in the Lisbon district.
methodsThis cross-sectional study analysed healthcare records from 88 278 women aged 25-60 years. Participation was assessed based on documented screening within nationally recommended timeframes. Migrants were classified by nationality into Portuguese-speaking and non-Portuguese-speaking groups. Screening participation was compared between groups, adjusting for age, family doctor assignment, primary healthcare unit type and provider gender. Logistic regression identified factors influencing participation.
resultsMigrants showed lower uptake of cervical cancer screening: 19.6% for non-Portuguese-speaking and 31.9% for Portuguese-speaking migrants, compared with 43.7% in non-migrants. After adjusting for confounders, non-Portuguese-speaking migrants had significantly lower odds of participation (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.50, p<0.01), while Portuguese-speaking migrants had participation rates similar to non-migrants (p=0.29). Key healthcare factors that were associated with higher participation include enrolment in Family Health Units (FHUs) (OR=3.55, 95% CI 3.41 to 3.70, p<0.01) and having an assigned female family doctor (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.50, p<0.01).
conclusionsMigrant women face unique barriers to cervical cancer screening, particularly language and cultural differences. These findings highlight the need for tailored screening programmes incorporating multilingual support, cultural mediation and self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing as an alternative screening method. Enhancing healthcare delivery through training, improved access to family doctors and more incentive-driven FHUs could significantly improve screening uptake. Addressing these disparities is crucial for advancing health equity and enhancing cervical cancer prevention.
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.