SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026
Mobile Cancer Screening Programs: A Systematic Review of Implementation Challenges and Population Access.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis review aimed to synthesize evidence on the design characteristics, implementation considerations, and operational challenges of mobile cancer screening units.
methodsA PRISMA-guided review was conducted. Data extracted included screening type, target population, program characteristics, mobile unit features, and reported implementation barriers. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).
resultsSixty-four articles published across 13 countries met the inclusion criteria. Most interventions focused on breast cancer screening (n = 37), followed by lung (n = 11), cervical (n = 6), colorectal, skin, prostate, and multi-cancer screening programs. MSUs were most frequently deployed in urban areas (21 urban/18 rural/17 both). Several comparative studies (fixed programs vs. MSUs) reported higher screening uptake in mobile programs, although findings varied substantially by setting, population, and study design. However, adherence and clinical outcomes varied, often reflecting baseline socioeconomic differences in the populations served. Common implementation barriers included follow-up coordination challenges, program costs, equipment and space limitations, and gaps in referral and reimbursement systems.
conclusionsThese findings highlight the potential of mobile screening units as public health strategies to expand access to cancer screening while underscoring the need for stronger implementation frameworks and long-term evaluation of program outcomes.
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.