HPV and Cervical Cancer Awareness and Screening Practices among Migrant Women: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This narrative review explores the barriers and facilitators that migrant women face globally. The review explored a range of studies conducted in various countries, including the United States of America (USA), the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It also specialises in the experiences of migrant women living in Sydney, Australia, and women living in Ras Al Khaimah (RAK), UAE. Cervical cancer ranks as the fourth most prevalent form of cancer among women worldwide. It is the fourteenth most common cancer among women in Australia and the fourth most common cancer in the UAE. Despite the availability of vaccinations and cervical screening initiatives in many countries, including the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, and the UAE, migrant women living in these countries continue to experience considerable health gaps when accessing cervical cancer screening services. Addressing these disparities is crucial to ensuring everyone has equal healthcare access. An electronic search was conducted using three databases to identify articles published between 2011 and 2021. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research studies were included in the search. The identified factors were classified into categories of barriers and facilitators of cervical screening uptake, which were then sub-categorized. This narrative review examines the awareness of cervical cancer and screening behaviours, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators associated with cervical cancer screening. According to the study, several factors pose significant obstacles for migrant women worldwide, particularly those living in the USA, the UK, Canada, and Sydney, Australia, and Emirati and non-Emirati women (migrant women) residing in RAK when it comes to undergoing cervical cancer screening. These barriers include inadequate knowledge and emotional, cultural, religious, psychological, and organisational factors. On the other hand, social support, awareness campaigns, and the availability of screening services were found to promote the uptake of cervical cancer screening. The findings from this review suggest that healthcare providers should adopt culturally sensitive approaches to enhance awareness and encourage participation in screening programs among migrant women. Based on the findings of this narrative review, it is strongly suggested that healthcare providers and policymakers prioritise developing culturally sensitive screening initiatives for migrant women. It is essential to address the psychological and emotional barriers that prevent migrant women from accessing screening services. This can be accomplished by offering education and awareness campaigns in their native languages and implementing a community-based approach to encourage social support and increase awareness of cervical cancer and screening services. Furthermore, healthcare providers and organisations should provide educational tools that address common misconceptions based on cultural and religious factors that prevent women from accessing screening services.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".