MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411928498 · doi:10.1007/s44197-025-00427-5

Breast Cancer in Afghan Women: A Systematic Review of Awareness, Screening Practices, and Risk Factors

2025· review· en· W4411928498 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Rahman Hewad Mal, L. Holubec Sen.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Epidemiology and Global Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAfghanBreast cancerGynecologyCancerFamily medicineObstetricsEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most prevalent and diagnosed tumor among women globally. There is limited data regarding its incidence and prevention in Afghanistan and among Afghan refugees. Sociopolitical instability, low awareness, and restricted access to healthcare may all lead to late-stage diagnosis and adverse results of breast cancer among Afghan women. AIM: This systematic study intends to analyze the available studies on breast cancer awareness, sociocultural, screening practices, and risk factors among Afghan women. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, and institutional repositories for studies published from 2013 to 2024. The keywords included “breast cancer,” “Afghanistan,” “Afghan women,” “awareness,” “screening,” “sociocultural,” and “risk factors.” Studies were chosen according to specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a standardized form and assessed for quality with the JBI and Newcastle-Ottawa tools. Due to the variety in study designs and outcomes, an exploratory approach was used. RESULTS: From 50 articles, nine studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total sample of over 3,085 Afghan women. Most studies were cross-sectional, with a few qualitative and case-control designs. Breast cancer awareness was generally low, with less than 40% of participants aware of breast clinical screening methods or self-examination (BSE). Screening rates were low, delayed menstruation, family history of cancer, obesity, sociocultural practices, religious reasons, low health literacy, and lack of female health professionals were found to be the main risk factors among Afghan and refugee women. Barriers to timely diagnosis and treatment included conflict-related infrastructure gaps, stigma, and gender norms restricting women’s participation in making healthcare decisions. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer in Afghan women has been under-studied and poorly addressed by the national public health system. Low awareness of breast cancer, low screening practice, or lack of information, and cultural and systemic barriers to delayed diagnosis and treatment are the main reasons. Since the political changes in Afghanistan after 2021, women’s access to public awareness about breast cancer, educational centers, and health facilities have been significantly limited. To reduce the incidence of disease in this society, public health interventions should be implemented to enhance access to female-led healthcare services and treatment.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0140.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Epidemiology and Global HealthSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207