Promoting Health Literacy About Cancer Screening Among Muslim Immigrants in Canada: Perspectives of Imams on the Role They Can Play in Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Immigrants tend to have lower rates of cancer screening than non-immigrants in Canada. Inequity in screening rates may stem from religious factors, which religious leaders can influence. This study aimed to explore the knowledge and attitudes held by Muslim religious leaders about cancer screening, as well as the role religious leaders perceive they can play in improving cancer screening health literacy among South Asian Muslim immigrant women. Methods: We conducted interviews with 8 Muslim religious leaders in Calgary, Canada. Participants’ knowledge and attitudes were inductively summarized using descriptive analysis, while practices were deductively thematically analyzed using the Socioecological Model and the Communication for Development approaches. Results: We found participants mostly had some knowledge of cancer, but lesser knowledge of different screening tests and of low screening rates among immigrants. Participants proposed that their role as a speaker, access to facilities and community networks, and collaboration with universities and healthcare professionals could help overcome religious misinterpretations and promote cancer screening among South Asian Muslim immigrant women. Conclusion: Religious leaders were highly supportive of incorporating health messaging into faith-based messaging. Future work should focus on implementing the practices recommended in this study with South Asian Muslim immigrant women’s voices at their center.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".