Breast CancerIMCANNCT06106165
Improving Muslim Women's Uptake of Cancer Screening (IMCAN)
A study testing In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim women and Online In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim women in people with Breast Cancer and Bowel Cancer, run by University of Sunderland at 2 sites in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
The goal of this non-randomised trial is to test how a workshop that includes religiously-tailored messages can help increase the uptake of breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening among Muslim women in North East England and Scotland. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 25 to 74 years, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Breast Cancer, Bowel Cancer, Cervical Cancer
- What is being tested?
- In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim women and Online In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim women
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 169 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 1 Nov 2023to 31 Dec 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 25 to 74 years
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Women from any ethnicity identifying as Muslim
- Muslim Women aged 25-74 years
- Muslim women living in North East England or Scotland
- Muslim women who are not up-to-date with all cancer screening they are eligible for; women who are up-to-date with one type of screening but not others would be eligible (for example, women might be up-to-date with breast cancer screening but not cervical or bowel cancer screening)
Who cannot join
- Women who do not identify as Muslim
- Women aged less than 25 years or older than 74 years
- Women who are up-to-date with all the screening they are eligible for
- Women who had either breast, cervical or bowel cancer before as their knowledge of the disease and treatment would differ from other women who do not have any prior experience with the disease
- Women who have had BReast CAncer gene testing and underwent mastectomy and/or hysterectomy
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
United Kingdom2 sites
University of Glasgow
Glasgow, Scotland
University of Sunderland
Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, SR1 3SD
About this study
Official title: Improving Uptake of Breast, Bowel and Cervical Cancer Screening Among Muslim Women: a Non-randomised Feasibility Study of a Peer-led, Faith-based Intervention
The goal of this non-randomised trial is to test how a workshop that includes religiously-tailored messages can help increase the uptake of breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening among Muslim women in North East England and Scotland.
The results of this trial will inform the development of a full-scale randomised-controlled trial.
Participants in this study will be asked to take part in a two-hour workshop, deliver either online or in-person.
Read the detailed description
Low rates of cancer screening among Muslim women puts them at higher risk of death from screening since they do not detect cancer early. This study will work to increase the uptake of cancer screening among Muslim women using two-hour workshops delivered in the community.
The workshops were developed with the help of 10 Muslim women in Scotland. The workshops include four parts:
- A discussion on the barriers and facilitators to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening
- A health information session given by a female health provider on cancer screening
- Videos of Muslim women talking about their experiences with cancer screening
- A session given by a female religious scholar to discuss Islamic perspectives on cancer screening.
Another eighteen Muslim women then took part in the workshops; they gave positive feedback on the content of the workshops and how the sessions were delivered.
In the feasibility trial, the workshops will be delivered to 200 Muslim women to find out whether a full-scale randomised-controlled trial can take place. This study will be carried out with the help of 10 Muslim women who will give advice on the content of the workshops and plan for implementation; they will also help with the delivery of the workshops.
It is expected that this study will lead to changes in knowledge and screening uptake among participants.
- Conditions
- Breast Cancer, Bowel Cancer, Cervical Cancer
- Being tested
- In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim women, Online In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim women
- Keywords
- Cancer screening, Breast Cancer, Bowel Cancer, Cervical Cancer, Faith-based intervention, Muslim women
- Medical subject headings
- Breast Neoplasms, Intestinal Neoplasms, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim womenOther
The intervention includes a two-hour workshop, delivered in-person, that aims to improve the uptake of cancer screening among Muslim women.
The workshop consists of four parts:
- A peer-led discussion on barriers and facilitators to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening
- A health information session led by a health professional
- Videos of Muslim women talking about their experiences with cancer screening
- A religious perspective on cancer screening led by a female religious scholar
Online In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim womenOther
The intervention includes a two-hour workshop, delivered online, that aims to improve the uptake of cancer screening among Muslim women.
The workshop consists of four parts:
- A peer-led discussion on barriers and facilitators to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening
- A health information session led by a health professional
- Videos of Muslim women talking about their experiences with cancer screening
- A religious perspective on cancer screening led by a female religious scholar
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| In-person delivery | Experimental | Participants will attend the workshops in a mosque or community centre. Receives: Other: In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim women |
| Online delivery | Experimental | Participants will join the workshops via a web conferencing platform The content of the online workshops is identical to the content of in-person workshops. Receives: Other: Online In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim women |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Narrative description of feasibility
The primary outcome of the project will be a narrative description of study feasibility, including recruitment and retention, protocol adherence and stakeholder acceptability. The primary outcome will be assessed using a mixed methods approach and assessed according the progression criteria, as described below.
Measured: 12 months
Recruitment feasibility
Determine how many women accept the invitation to participate in the study and to estimate eligibility, recruitment and refusal rates.
This will be assessed using project monitoring data maintained by the research team which logs in detail all study data, including number of people, time, missing data, and cost where relevant.
Eligibility rate: Calculated as the number of participants screened/number of participants eligible x100%
Recruitment rate: Calculated as the number of enrolled participants/number of eligible participants x 100%
We will report recruitment and retention rates with 90% confidence intervals. Recruitment and retention rates will be summarised in relation to baseline characteristics, and differences in retention rates will be assessed using logistic regression methods.
Measured: Baseline, 5 months, 7 months, 12 months
Screening status of participants and the proportion of participants who were partially/not up to date with screening
Estimate the screening-non-responder rate. Non-responder rate: Calculated as the number of enrolled participants who were screening non-responders/number of eligible participants x 100%
Measured: Baseline
Retention rate
Estimate loss to follow up/retention rate.
This will be assessed using project monitoring data Retention rate: Calculated as the number of participants who complete the 12 months follow up/number of participants in the intervention x100% This data will be compared for non-responders and partial responders.
Measured: 6 months, 12 months
Peer educator recruitment feasibility
Number of women who accepted the invitation to become peer educators, and the number of peer educators retained at 12 months. This will be assessed using project monitoring data.
Peer-educator recruitment rate: Calculated as the number of enrolled peer-educators/number of eligible peer-educators x 100% Peer-educator retention rate: calculated as the number of peer-educators at 12 months/number of peer-educators recruited x 100%
Measured: baseline, 12 months
Feasibility of obtaining screening data
Whether the research team was able to obtain screening records for participants in all study location, and the proportion of participants who gave consent to access their screening records
Measured: 12 months
Questionnaire response rate
The proportion of participants responding to questionnaires at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.
Measured: Baseline, 6 months, 12 months
Feasibility of measuring secondary outcomes
Measure key secondary outcome measures including behavioural intention proxies, and feasibility of self-reported data, missing data, estimates, variances and 95% CIs for any comparisons.
Baseline and follow up data
Data will be assessed in relation to each of the 3 different types of screening, as well as generally, to ensure we capture whether the intervention has a differential impact on different screening types.
We will also aim to compare behavioural change and self-reported data with the actual NHS screening data.
Participants' scores on outcome scales, and changes over time, will be reported using descriptive methods. Paired t-tests, or non-parametric alternatives, will be used to estimate changes over time, with 90% confidence intervals. Correlations between baseline and follow-up measures will be reported with 90% confidence intervals.
Measured: Baseline, 6 months, 12 months
Difference on key domains between intervention modalities (online/face to face)
Comparison of measures on key domains for trial parameters will provide insight into the feasibility of the two different modes of delivery.
This will be inspected using project monitoring data baseline and follow up measures.
Including: eligibility rate, recruitment rate, retention rate, all measures non-responders/attenders and missing data
Visual inspection of trends and descriptive data will be used to establish whether comparisons between modalities is feasible.
Measured: Baseline, 6 months, 12 months
The acceptability of the study engagement process to peer-educators
Qualitative exploration of the acceptability of the process of recruitment, co-design phase, training, experiences and delivery of intervention.
Qualitative process evaluation focus groups with peer-educators. Including: experiences of co-design phase, experiences of recruitment of peer-educators, experiences of training, experiences of delivery of the intervention, language and use of interpreters, and perspectives on the intervention and study.
Measured: 12 months
The acceptability of the intervention and its implementation to participants and stakeholders, including intervention components and delivery mode (online/face-to-face)
Qualitative exploration of the acceptability of the intervention and its delivery with participants and key stakeholders.
Qualitative process evaluation focus groups with participants and interviews with stakeholders.
This explores the following: content of the intervention, delivery mode of the intervention (face-to-face/online), delivery of the intervention (peer-educators, health care provider, religious perspective, personal testimonials), and experience and perspectives of taking part in the intervention
Measured: 12 months
The acceptability of data collection methods used to participants and stakeholders
Qualitative exploration of the acceptability of the data collection methods and secondary outcome measures with participants and key stakeholders.
Qualitative process evaluation focus groups with participants and interviews with stakeholders Including: invitation to participate , recruitment processes, consent taking, baseline and follow-up secondary outcome measures, engagement in baseline and follow-up processes, and willingness to be randomised.
Measured: 12 months
Adherence to protocol
Explore qualitatively protocol adherence and barriers and enablers to key stakeholders such as research staff and collaborators. Qualitative process evaluation interviews with research staff and collaborators.
Measured: 12 months
Secondary outcomes (8)
Religious health fatalism questionnaire (RHFQ)
A questionnaire will be given to participants to test how religious beliefs influence health beliefs and willingness to obtain screening and medical treatments.
RHFQ includes 8 statements that are answered on 5-point Likert scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=undecided, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree Higher scores indicate higher levels of religious fatalism, thus a lower willingness to attend screening due to religious beliefs
Measured: Baseline
Modesty
The Modesty Measure for Muslim women (MMM-W) will be given to participants to examine how self-representation among Muslim women can affect their health seeking behaviours.
The questionnaire will ask participants to indicate whether they 'agree', 'disagree' or 'ambivalent' to 10 statements about modest behaviour and healthcare
Measured: Baseline
Sociodemographic descriptors
Participant characteristics, such as age, location, education level, ethnicity, professional occupation and marital status, will be recorded
Measured: Baseline
Cancer knowledge questions adapted from Cancer Awareness Measures (CAM) by Cancer Research UK
This measure will assess changes in knowledge about the risk factors, symptoms and screening of breast, bowel and cervical cancer among participants.
The questionnaire will be administered online through Qualtrics (a telephone option will also be offered).
Multiple choice questions are used for this measure.
Measured: baseline, 6 months and 12 months
Cancer screening behaviour
A cancer screening behaviour questionnaire will be given to participants. This consists of 2 parts:
- Participants will be asked about whether they attended breast, bowel or cervical cancer screening and if they are planning to attend screening. The answers for these questions will be: 'yes', 'no' or 'I don't know'.
- The second part includes statements that represent barrier and facilitator beliefs that might affect screening behaviour. Participants will be asked to indicate the level of agreement with each statement on 5-point liker scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=undecided, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree
Measured: baseline, 6 months and 12 months
Self-reported screening uptake
Change in the number of participants who obtained screening following the intervention. This outcome is self-reported by participants
Measured: baseline, 6 months and 12 months
Actual screening uptake
Screening data from the National Health Services (NHS) will be analysed to examine the change in the number of participants who obtained screening following the intervention.
Measured: baseline, 6 months and 12 months
Quality of life measures
Intervention participants will be asked to fill EQ-5D-5L questionnaires, which comprises five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems and extreme problems.
Measured: Baseline, 6 months, 12 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Oct 2023
- Study start1 Nov 2023
- Primary completion31 Dec 2025
- Study completion31 Dec 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Breast CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 169 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Sunderland
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Glasgow
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Floor Christie-de Jong, University of Sunderland
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06106165
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- EDDPJT-May22\100030
- Acronym
- IMCAN
- Status last verified
- May 2024
- First submitted
- 16 Aug 2023
- Last updated
- 29 May 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 May 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Improving Uptake of Breast, Bowel and Cervical Cancer Screening Among Muslim Women: a Non-randomised Feasibility Study of a Peer-led, Faith-based Intervention
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06106165
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IMCAN / EDDPJT-May22\100030
- Conditions
- Breast Cancer, Bowel Cancer, Cervical Cancer
- Keywords
- Cancer screening, Breast Cancer, Bowel Cancer, Cervical Cancer, Faith-based intervention, Muslim women
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 169 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of SunderlandUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Glasgow
- Study start
- 1 Nov 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 30 Oct 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this non-randomised trial is to test how a workshop that includes religiously-tailored messages can help increase the uptake of breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening among Muslim women in North East England and Scotland.
The results of this trial will inform the development of a full-scale randomised-controlled trial.
Participants in this study will be asked to take part in a two-hour workshop, deliver either online or in-person.
Detailed description
Low rates of cancer screening among Muslim women puts them at higher risk of death from screening since they do not detect cancer early. This study will work to increase the uptake of cancer screening among Muslim women using two-hour workshops delivered in the community.
The workshops were developed with the help of 10 Muslim women in Scotland. The workshops include four parts:
- A discussion on the barriers and facilitators to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening
- A health information session given by a female health provider on cancer screening
- Videos of Muslim women talking about their experiences with cancer screening
- A session given by a female religious scholar to discuss Islamic perspectives on cancer screening.
Another eighteen Muslim women then took part in the workshops; they gave positive feedback on the content of the workshops and how the sessions were delivered.
In the feasibility trial, the workshops will be delivered to 200 Muslim women to find out whether a full-scale randomised-controlled trial can take place. This study will be carried out with the help of 10 Muslim women who will give advice on the content of the workshops and plan for implementation; they will also help with the delivery of the workshops.
It is expected that this study will lead to changes in knowledge and screening uptake among participants.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| In-person delivery | Experimental | Other: In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim womenParticipants will attend the workshops in a mosque or community centre. |
| Online delivery | Experimental | Other: Online In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim womenParticipants will join the workshops via a web conferencing platform The content of the online workshops is identical to the content of in-person workshops. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 25 to 74 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Women from any ethnicity identifying as Muslim
- Muslim Women aged 25-74 years
- Muslim women living in North East England or Scotland
- Muslim women who are not up-to-date with all cancer screening they are eligible for; women who are up-to-date with one type of screening but not others would be eligible (for example, women might be up-to-date with breast cancer screening but not cervical or bowel cancer screening)
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Women who do not identify as Muslim
- Women aged less than 25 years or older than 74 years
- Women who are up-to-date with all the screening they are eligible for
- Women who had either breast, cervical or bowel cancer before as their knowledge of the disease and treatment would differ from other women who do not have any prior experience with the disease
- Women who have had BReast CAncer gene testing and underwent mastectomy and/or hysterectomy
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim womenThe intervention includes a two-hour workshop, delivered in-person, that aims to improve the uptake of cancer screening among Muslim women. The workshop consists of four parts: * A peer-led discussion on barriers and facilitators to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening * A health information session led by a health professional * Videos of Muslim women talking about their experiences with cancer screening * A religious perspective on cancer screening led by a female religious scholar | Other | In-person delivery |
| Online In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim womenThe intervention includes a two-hour workshop, delivered online, that aims to improve the uptake of cancer screening among Muslim women. The workshop consists of four parts: * A peer-led discussion on barriers and facilitators to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening * A health information session led by a health professional * Videos of Muslim women talking about their experiences with cancer screening * A religious perspective on cancer screening led by a female religious scholar | Other | Online delivery |
Primary outcome
Narrative description of feasibility
Time frame: 12 months
The primary outcome of the project will be a narrative description of study feasibility, including recruitment and retention, protocol adherence and stakeholder acceptability. The primary outcome will be assessed using a mixed methods approach and assessed according the progression criteria, as described below.
Recruitment feasibility
Time frame: Baseline, 5 months, 7 months, 12 months
Determine how many women accept the invitation to participate in the study and to estimate eligibility, recruitment and refusal rates. This will be assessed using project monitoring data maintained by the research team which logs in detail all study data, including number of people, time, missing data, and cost where relevant. Eligibility rate: Calculated as the number of participants screened/number of participants eligible x100% Recruitment rate: Calculated as the number of enrolled participants/number of eligible participants x 100% We will report recruitment and retention rates with 90% confidence intervals. Recruitment and retention rates will be summarised in relation to baseline characteristics, and differences in retention rates will be assessed using logistic regression methods.
Screening status of participants and the proportion of participants who were partially/not up to date with screening
Time frame: Baseline
Estimate the screening-non-responder rate. Non-responder rate: Calculated as the number of enrolled participants who were screening non-responders/number of eligible participants x 100%
Retention rate
Time frame: 6 months, 12 months
Estimate loss to follow up/retention rate. This will be assessed using project monitoring data Retention rate: Calculated as the number of participants who complete the 12 months follow up/number of participants in the intervention x100% This data will be compared for non-responders and partial responders.
Peer educator recruitment feasibility
Time frame: baseline, 12 months
Number of women who accepted the invitation to become peer educators, and the number of peer educators retained at 12 months. This will be assessed using project monitoring data. Peer-educator recruitment rate: Calculated as the number of enrolled peer-educators/number of eligible peer-educators x 100% Peer-educator retention rate: calculated as the number of peer-educators at 12 months/number of peer-educators recruited x 100%
Feasibility of obtaining screening data
Time frame: 12 months
Whether the research team was able to obtain screening records for participants in all study location, and the proportion of participants who gave consent to access their screening records
Questionnaire response rate
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months, 12 months
The proportion of participants responding to questionnaires at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.
Feasibility of measuring secondary outcomes
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months, 12 months
Measure key secondary outcome measures including behavioural intention proxies, and feasibility of self-reported data, missing data, estimates, variances and 95% CIs for any comparisons. Baseline and follow up data Data will be assessed in relation to each of the 3 different types of screening, as well as generally, to ensure we capture whether the intervention has a differential impact on different screening types. We will also aim to compare behavioural change and self-reported data with the actual NHS screening data. Participants' scores on outcome scales, and changes over time, will be reported using descriptive methods. Paired t-tests, or non-parametric alternatives, will be used to estimate changes over time, with 90% confidence intervals. Correlations between baseline and follow-up measures will be reported with 90% confidence intervals.
Difference on key domains between intervention modalities (online/face to face)
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months, 12 months
Comparison of measures on key domains for trial parameters will provide insight into the feasibility of the two different modes of delivery. This will be inspected using project monitoring data baseline and follow up measures. Including: eligibility rate, recruitment rate, retention rate, all measures non-responders/attenders and missing data Visual inspection of trends and descriptive data will be used to establish whether comparisons between modalities is feasible.
The acceptability of the study engagement process to peer-educators
Time frame: 12 months
Qualitative exploration of the acceptability of the process of recruitment, co-design phase, training, experiences and delivery of intervention. Qualitative process evaluation focus groups with peer-educators. Including: experiences of co-design phase, experiences of recruitment of peer-educators, experiences of training, experiences of delivery of the intervention, language and use of interpreters, and perspectives on the intervention and study.
The acceptability of the intervention and its implementation to participants and stakeholders, including intervention components and delivery mode (online/face-to-face)
Time frame: 12 months
Qualitative exploration of the acceptability of the intervention and its delivery with participants and key stakeholders. Qualitative process evaluation focus groups with participants and interviews with stakeholders. This explores the following: content of the intervention, delivery mode of the intervention (face-to-face/online), delivery of the intervention (peer-educators, health care provider, religious perspective, personal testimonials), and experience and perspectives of taking part in the intervention
The acceptability of data collection methods used to participants and stakeholders
Time frame: 12 months
Qualitative exploration of the acceptability of the data collection methods and secondary outcome measures with participants and key stakeholders. Qualitative process evaluation focus groups with participants and interviews with stakeholders Including: invitation to participate , recruitment processes, consent taking, baseline and follow-up secondary outcome measures, engagement in baseline and follow-up processes, and willingness to be randomised.
Adherence to protocol
Time frame: 12 months
Explore qualitatively protocol adherence and barriers and enablers to key stakeholders such as research staff and collaborators. Qualitative process evaluation interviews with research staff and collaborators.
8 secondary outcomes
Religious health fatalism questionnaire (RHFQ)
Time frame: Baseline
Modesty
Time frame: Baseline
Sociodemographic descriptors
Time frame: Baseline
Cancer knowledge questions adapted from Cancer Awareness Measures (CAM) by Cancer Research UK
Time frame: baseline, 6 months and 12 months
Cancer screening behaviour
Time frame: baseline, 6 months and 12 months
Self-reported screening uptake
Time frame: baseline, 6 months and 12 months
Actual screening uptake
Time frame: baseline, 6 months and 12 months
Quality of life measures
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months, 12 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 29 May 2026.
Related trials for Breast Cancer
Active, not recruiting
Streamlined Geriatric and Oncological Evaluation Based On IC Technology
Breast Cancer, Comorbidities and Coexisting Conditions
RecruitingPhase 2
Gene Signatures to Guide HR+MBC Therapy in a Diverse Cohort
Invasive Mammary Carcinoma, Metastatic Breast Cancer
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Comparison of Reliability, Time Cost, and Participant Comfort of Lymphedema Assessments in Upper Extremity
Lymphedema, Upper Extremity Lymphedema
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study of Camrelizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Combination With or Without Famitinib as Neoadjuvant Therapy in Participants With Triple Negative Breast Cancer (BCTOP-T-N01)
TNBC - Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
RecruitingPhase 3
Testing Whether Hormone Therapy With Ribociclib is as Effective as Chemotherapy Followed by Hormone Therapy With Ribociclib for the Treatment of High Anatomic Stage Breast Cancer With Low Recurrence Risk, The RxFINE-Low Trial
Anatomic Stage II Breast Cancer AJCC v8, Anatomic Stage IIIA Breast Cancer AJCC v8
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim women and Online In-person peer-led faith-based intervention to encourage breast, bowel, and cervical screening uptake among Muslim women in people with Breast Cancer and Bowel Cancer, run by University of Sunderland at 2 sites in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 29 May 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Narrative description of feasibility (time frame: 12 months). The study lists 13 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 29 May 2026.