Cancer screening research in Bangladesh: Insights from a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review summarises the findings of research conducted on cancer screening in Bangladesh, including the prevalence, awareness, barriers, and evaluation of screening programmes, by performing a comprehensive search of electronic databases and gray literature. 25 studies that met inclusion criteria were included in the final analysis. Most of the studies were about screening for cervical cancer, were quantitative, were cross-sectional, and were conducted in hospital settings. The main challenges to screening uptake were shyness, fear, a lack of knowledge, and an inadequate understanding of the concept of screening. Visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) was found to be a simple and cost-efficient way to detect early-stage cervical cancer. However, breast self-examination (BSE) was reported to be insufficient. Education was found to have a positive impact on cancer screening knowledge and practice, but more needs to be done to improve screening rates, such as the utilisation of media, particularly in rural areas. The results of this scoping review highlight Bangladesh's low cancer screening prevalence and uptake and suggest that targeted awareness campaigns and enhanced access to screening services are required to increase cancer screening uptake and reduce the cancer burden in Bangladesh.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".