Effectiveness of breast cancer screening interventions in improving screening rates and preventive activities in Muslim refugee and immigrant women: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically assess the effectiveness of breast cancer (BC) interventions in improving breast self-examination (BSE), clinical breast examination (CBE), mammogram screening rates, and preventive activities in Muslim refugee and immigrant women. DESIGN: Guided by the Health Belief Model, a mixed method systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using a sequential design. METHODS: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement (PRISMA), the Critical Appraisal Skill Program Checklists, and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search of English-language peer-reviewed articles was undertaken in multiple health and social sciences databases from January 1, 2015, to March 31, 2022. Randomized clinical trials and quasi-experimental studies focused on the uptake of BSE, CBE, and mammograms were selected. RESULTS: Fourteen articles were included in the review. Most of the studies relied on quasi-experimental designs and were carried out in the United States of America. The qualitative analysis of BC screening interventions generated three themes: (1) education, (2) access-focused, and (3) cultural and faith-based. The meta-analysis included three randomized control trials and two quasi-experimental studies. The meta-analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of community-led cultural and faith-based interventions in facilitating the completion of CBE and mammography screening. Education on BC and patient navigator interventions are more effectively used in conjunction than standalone interventions, yet community-based cultural and faith-based interventions are the most effective. CONCLUSION: This systematic and meta-analysis review provides evidence on the effectiveness of access-focused and cultural and faith-based interventions in improving BC screening in Muslim refugee and immigrant women. Future research should focus on designing and measuring the effectiveness of cultural and faith-based interventions to increase Muslim refugee and immigrant women's BC screening knowledge and practices. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This systematic and meta-analysis review demonstrates the need to explore Muslim refugee and immigrant women's cultural contexts for developing culturally sensitive BC screening interventions. Knowledge and practice of BC and religiosity intersect with financial, geographic, and linguistic barriers to decrease participation in screening and preventive activities in Muslim refugee and immigrant women.
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 | 0.020 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".