ArticleBMJ open2026
Mapping cancer literacy levels, barriers and facilitators, educational initiatives and misinformation narratives: multiple scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCancer literacy (CL) is essential for enabling informed decision-making, prevention, early detection and adherence to treatment. However, disparities in CL across Europe, coupled with the spread of disinformation, limit equitable access to cancer care. This protocol describes a collection of scoping reviews to document the state of CL, misinformation narratives and education and training initiatives and identify barriers and facilitators. This work is embedded within the activities of the Beating Cancer Inequalities through Literacy in Europe project and encompasses nine consortium countries across Europe: Romania, Portugal, Belgium, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Ukraine, Italy, Ireland and Moldova. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The protocol follows the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews(PRISMA-ScR) checklist, guided by the Population, Concept, Context framework. Searches will be conducted in PubMed, supplemented by grey literature, capturing results from January 2015 to December 2025. Eligible records will undergo full-text review. Data will be extracted into predefined categories reflecting the topics of interest, developed by the research team before extraction to include key study information. Then, sources in local languages are provided by the partners, included and validated by native-speaking team members, adding to the results found by the researchers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, project reports and stakeholder workshops. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/9AQSX).
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.