CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningWomen's cancer prevention and managementHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Status of cancer screening in India: An alarm signal from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5)

Open access
Gopika, M. G, Prabhu, Priya R., Thulaseedharan, Jissa V.·2022·Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care
DOI 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1140_22PMC PMC10041275
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A BSTRACT: Background: Cancer is often detected much later to its onset, resulting in poor prognosis. This makes cancer the second most common cause of death globally. Looking for cancers much before any symptoms occur is termed “cancer screening” and is a powerful strategy for prevention, early diagnosis, and better management of several cancers. This paper examines the status of cancer screening in India from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS)-5 report for the period of 2019–2021. Methods: Secondary data on participation in screening for cervical, breast, and oral cancer were extracted from the NFHS-5 report. Participation status for all the above cancer types is represented as percentages and compared across 28 states and eight union territories in India. Results: The percentages of women who have ever undergone cervical, breast, and oral cavity screening were 1.9%, 0.9%, and 0.9%, respectively. About 1.2% of men participated in oral cavity screening. The highest percentage of cervical and breast cancer screening participation was reported in Tamil Nadu (9.8% and 5.6%, respectively), followed by Puducherry (7.4% and 4.2%) and Mizoram (6.9% and 2.7%). Andaman and Nicobar Islands reported the highest oral cancer screening among women (10.1%) while Andhra Pradesh (6.3%) reported the highest participation among men. Conclusion: Cancer screening participation in India is extremely inadequate and calls for the immediate attention of national and state governments. Additional efforts are warranted to improve public awareness of cancer screening, and appropriate measures should be implemented to conduct well-organized screening programs across the country to ensure maximum participation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1140_22

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In India, coverage of VIA cervical screening is low (1.9% ever screened) due to multiple provider- and recipient-related barriers.

    “While India’s current policy solution of Visual Inspection of the cervix with Acetic acid (VIA)2 is primarily based on affordability, the coverage achieved is low (1.9% ever screened)3 due to multiple provider and recipient-related barriers.4”

    From Protocol for a cervical screening implementation trial comparing two approaches for delivering HPV self-collection in low-resource settings in India: a type 3 hybrid cluster randomised controlled trial (SHE-CAN) (2025) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Results (‘Cancer screening participation in India’) report that 1.9% of women in India had ever undergone cervical cancer screening, supporting the low-coverage figure. The figure is for cervical screening overall, not VIA specifically. The provider- and recipient-related barriers carry a separate citation in the citing sentence and are not assessed against this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]Wild C Weiderpass E Stewart BW World Cancer Report:Cancer Research for Cancer Prevention IARC Press 2020 Available from: https://publications.iarc.fr/Non-Series-Publications/World-Cancer-Reports/World-Cancer-Report -Cancer-Research-For-Cancer- Prevention-2020 Last accessed on 2022 Apr 30 39432694

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gopika, M. G., Prabhu, P. R., & Thulaseedharan, J. V.
Affiliations
  • SRM Institute of Science and Technology (IN)
  • Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
  • Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (IN)
Corresponding author
Thulaseedharan, Jissa V.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2022-11
Volume
11
Issue
11
Pages
7303-7307
ISSN
  • 2249-4863 (ISSN-L)
  • 2278-7135
DOI
10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1140_22
PMC
PMC10041275
OpenAlex
W4313209553
Cited by
62
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 3
FWCI
4.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
cancer screening, screening uptake, cervical cancer screening, breast cancer screening, oral cancer screening, NFHS-5, India, state-level variation, cancer prevention, early diagnosis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review