Breast cancer screening utilization among Eastern European immigrant women worldwide: a systematic literature review and a focus on psychosocial barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many countries host growing Eastern European immigrant communities whose breast cancer preventive behaviors are largely unknown. Thus, we aimed to synthesize current evidence regarding secondary prevention via breast cancer screening utilized by that population. METHODS: All observational, general population studies on breast cancer screening with Eastern European immigrant women and without any country, language, or age restrictions were identified. Screening modalities included breast self-examination, clinical breast examination, and mammography. RESULTS: The selected 30 studies were published between 1996 and 2013 and came from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA. The reported prevalence of monthly breast self-examination was 0-48%; for yearly clinical breast examination 27-54%; and for biennial mammography 0-71%. The substantial methodologic heterogeneity prevented a meta-analysis. Nonetheless, irrespective of host country, healthcare access, or educational level, the findings consistently indicated that Eastern European immigrant women underutilize breast cancer screening largely because of insufficient knowledge about early detection and an external locus of control regarding decision making in health matters. CONCLUSIONS: This is a vulnerable population for whom the implementation of culturally tailored breast cancer screening programs is needed. As with other underscreened immigrant/minority groups, Eastern European women's inadequate engagement in prevention is troublesome as it points to susceptibility not only to cancer but also to other serious conditions for which personal action and responsibility are critical.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".