Knowledge, attitudes and practices of South Asian immigrants in developed countries regarding oral cancer: an integrative review


 
 Oral cancer is a growing problem worldwide, with high incidence rates in South Asian countries. With increasing numbers of South Asian immigrants in developed countries, a possible rise in oral cancer cases is expected given the high prevalence in their source countries and the continued oral cancer risk behaviours of immigrants. The aim of this review is to synthesise existing evidence regarding knowledge, attitudes and practices of South Asian immigrants in developed countries regarding oral cancer.
 
 
 Five electronic databases were systematically searched to identify original, English language articles focussing on oral cancer risk knowledge, attitudes and practices of South Asian immigrants in developed countries. All studies that met the following inclusion criteria were included: conducted among South Asian immigrants in developed countries; explored at least one study outcome (knowledge or attitudes or practices); used either qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. No restrictions were placed on the publication date, quality and setting of the study.
 
 
 A total of 16 studies involving 4772 participants were reviewed. These studies were mainly conducted in the USA, UK, Italy and New Zealand between 1994 and 2018. Findings were categorised into themes of oral cancer knowledge, attitudes and practices. General lack of oral cancer risk knowledge (43–76%) among participants was reported. More than 50% people were found engaging in one or more oral cancer risk practices like smoking, betel quid/pan/gutka chewing. Some of the participants perceived betel quid/pan/gutka chewing habit good for their health (12–43.6%).
 
 
 This review has shown that oral cancer risk practices are prevalent among South Asian immigrants who possess limited knowledge and unfavourable attitude in this area. Culturally appropriate targeted interventions and strategies are needed to raise oral cancer awareness among South Asian communities in developed countries.



Introduction
The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) is an international, membership based research and development organization within the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Adelaide. The Institute specializes in promoting and supporting evidence-based healthcare by providing access to resources for professionals in nursing, midwifery, medicine, and allied health. With over 80 collaborating centres and entities, servicing over 90 countries, the Institute is a recognized global leader in evidence-based healthcare.

JBI Systematic Reviews
The core of evidence synthesis is the systematic review of literature of a particular intervention, condition or issue. The systematic review is essentially an analysis of the available literature (that is, evidence) and a judgment of the effectiveness or otherwise of a practice, involving a series of complex steps. The JBI takes a particular view on what counts as evidence and the methods utilized to synthesize those different types of evidence. In line with this broader view of evidence, the Institute has developed theories, methodologies and rigorous processes for the critical appraisal and synthesis of these diverse forms of evidence in order to aid in clinical decision-making in health care. There now exists JBI guidance for conducting reviews of effectiveness research, qualitative research, prevalence/incidence, etiology/risk, economic evaluations, text/opinion, diagnostic test accuracy, mixed-methods, umbrella reviews and scoping reviews. Further information regarding JBI systematic reviews can be found in the JBI Reviewer's Manual on our website.

JBI Critical Appraisal Tools
All systematic reviews incorporate a process of critique or appraisal of the research evidence. The purpose of this appraisal is to assess the methodological quality of a study and to determine the extent to which a study has addressed the possibility of bias in its design, conduct and analysis. All papers selected for inclusion in the systematic review (that is -those that meet the inclusion criteria described in the protocol) need to be subjected to rigorous appraisal by two critical appraisers. The results of this appraisal can then be used to inform synthesis and interpretation of the results of the study. JBI Critical appraisal tools have been developed by the JBI and collaborators and approved by the JBI Scientific Committee following extensive peer review. Although designed for use in systematic reviews, JBI critical appraisal tools can also be used when creating Critically Appraised Topics (CAT), in journal clubs and as an educational tool.

Analytical cross sectional studies Critical Appraisal Tool
Answers: Yes, No, Unclear or Not/Applicable

Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?
The authors should provide clear inclusion and exclusion criteria that they developed prior to recruitment of the study participants. The inclusion/exclusion criteria should be specified (e.g., risk, stage of disease progression) with sufficient detail and all the necessary information critical to the study.

Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
The study sample should be described in sufficient detail so that other researchers can determine if it is comparable to the population of interest to them. The authors should provide a clear description of the population from which the study participants were selected or recruited, including demographics, location, and time period.

Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?
The study should clearly describe the method of measurement of exposure. Assessing validity requires that a 'gold standard' is available to which the measure can be compared. The validity of exposure measurement usually relates to whether a current measure is appropriate or whether a measure of past exposure is needed. Reliability refers to the processes included in an epidemiological study to check repeatability of measurements of the exposures. These usually include intra-observer reliability and interobserver reliability.

Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition?
It is useful to determine if patients were included in the study based on either a specified diagnosis or definition. This is more likely to decrease the risk of bias. Characteristics are another useful approach to matching groups, and studies that did not use specified diagnostic methods or definitions should provide evidence on matching by key characteristics.