MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302286741 · doi:10.1111/jnu.12818

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

2022· review· en· W4302286741 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Racine, Melba Sheila D’Souza, Cindy Tinampay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Scholarship · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionSystematic reviewMedicineMeta-analysisCritical appraisalRandomized controlled trialFamily medicineBreast cancer screeningMEDLINEBreast cancerMammographyNursingAlternative medicineCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing ScholarshipSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207