MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224925606 · doi:10.1177/10436596221085301

Barriers and Facilitators Influencing Arab Muslim Immigrant and Refugee Women’s Breast Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review

2022· review· en· W4224925606 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Racine, İşıl Işik Andsoy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transcultural Nursing · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma KurumuSigma Theta Tau International
KeywordsImmigrationRefugeeNarrativeMedicineBreast cancer screeningBreast cancerGender studiesCancer screeningAcculturationGerontologyFamily medicineNursingCancerSociologyMammographyPolitical scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This narrative review identifies barriers and facilitators influencing breast cancer screening among Arab Muslim immigrants and refugees. Low participation rates create health inequities in breast cancer screening among this population. METHOD: A systematic search of peer-reviewed empirical articles was performed. PRISMA, CASP, and MMAT checklists were used to appraise the studies. RESULTS: Results include 3 themes: individual, health care system and health providers, and cultural factors. DISCUSSION: Lack of fluency in the new country's language, lack of knowledge, and poor exposure to breast cancer screening may contribute to the Arab Muslim women's vulnerability to undiagnosed or delayed breast cancer diagnosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transcultural NursingSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207