ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2026
Racial inequities in cervical cancer mortality and the role of the Bolsa Família conditional cash transfer programme: results from the 100 Million Brazilian Cohort.
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Structural and institutional racism in Brazil mainly affects Black, 'Parda'(Brown/Mixed) and Indigenous women, who are less likely to receive adequate health care. We investigated the association between race and cervical cancer mortality and whether this association is attenuated by receipt of the Bolsa Família Programme (BFP). Methods: Women from the 100 Million Brazilian Cohort were linked to nationwide mortality registries (2004-2015). Self-reported race (White/Black/Parda/Asian/Indigenous women) and cervical cancer mortality (ICD10C53) were analysed using Poisson models adjusted for age, education, area of residence (rural/urban), and year of enrolment. Effect modification by BFP (yes/no) was assessed. Findings: We analysed 18,291,600 women. Cervical cancer mortality rates were greater among Indigenous (adjusted-Mortality rate ratio (aMRR) and adjusted-Mortality rate difference (aMRD): 1.78, 95% CI 1.40-2.25 and 5.26, 95% CI 2.41-8.11, respectively), Asian (aMRR = 1.55, 1.16-2.06 and aMRD = 3.72, 0.74-6.70), Parda (aMRR = 1.28, 1.22-1.34 and aMRD = 1.91, 1.56-2.25), and Black (aMRR = 1.20, 1.12-1.29 and aMRD = 1.37, 0.80-1.95) women vs. White women. Among BFP recipients, aMRR and aMRD were, respectively, 1.12 (95% CI 1.03-1.22) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.19-1.35) for Black, 1.25 (1.19-1.32) and 1.61 (1.25-1.97) for Parda, 1.74 (1.35-2.24) and 4.70 (1.94-7.47) for Indigenous, and 1.56 (1.12-2.18) and 3.57 (0.26-6.87) for Asian women vs. White women; whilst among non-BFP recipients, aMRR and aMRD were, respectively, 1.53 (95% CI 1.31-1.78) and 4.05 (95% CI 2.34-5.76) for Black, 1.36 (1.24-1.49) and 2.76 (1.94-3.59) for Parda, 1.98 (0.94-4.16) and 7.48 (-3.77 to 18.73) for Indigenous, and 1.55 (0.89-2.68) and 4.21 (-2.27 to 10.68) for Asian women vs. White women (p interaction = 0.017). Interpretation: Racial differentials in cervical cancer mortality were reduced among BFP recipients and heightened among non-BFP recipients. This suggests that racial inequities in cervical cancer mortality may be mitigated with BFP receipt, through cash and/or conditionalities. Possibly, by improving women's income and access to cervical cancer screening and pre-cancer treatment, ultimately reducing mortality. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research-NIHR, Wellcome Trust, CNPq.
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.