@article{fdi:010094216,
  title = {{G}lobal therapeutic mobilities and cancer : a scoping review},
  author = {{S}chantz, {C}l{\'e}mence and {B}oisson, {S}arah and {P}rost-{L}ancon, {L}. and {B}onnet, {E}mmanuel and {D}ancoisne, {A}. and {B}aron, {M}. and {B}ochaton, {A}. and {S}enovie {G}rp},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{I}ntroduction {R}esearch on therapeutic mobility is abundant but the field of cancer has not yet been investigated thoroughly. {T}his scoping review aims to examine the existing evidence on global therapeutic mobility and cancer, providing a comprehensive overview of the subject. {M}ethods {W}e conducted a scoping review and followed the {P}referred {R}eporting {I}tems for {S}ystematic {R}eviews and {M}eta-{A}nalyses methodological guidelines. {W}e developed a comprehensive search strategy and discussed it with the research team. {W}e searched for peer-reviewed papers on {M}edline, {E}mbase, {ERIC} and {A}merican {P}sychological {A}ssociation via the {D}ialogue interface and {G}oogle {S}cholar and {CAIRN} bibliographic database for peer-reviewed articles. {W}e also included grey literature, such as unpublished work and relevant reports from {\'e}rudit. {W}e considered studies that employed quantitative or qualitative methods. {R}esults {A}mong the 1615 references initially selected, 767 duplicates were excluded. {T}hen, 849 studies were screened on title and abstract and 800 were excluded as they did not meet inclusion criteria. 49 studies were fully screened and 21 were excluded as they did not meet inclusion criteria based on full-text assessment. {U}ltimately, 28 references were included in the data synthesis. {T}his scoping review has shown that publications on therapeutic mobilities have multiplied in recent years, with a turning point in 2019. {A} range of academic disciplines and research methodologies are currently employed to describe them. {A} significant proportion of fieldwork is concentrated in {A}sia, {A}frica, {E}urope and {N}orth {A}merica. {D}espite the heterogeneity of the approaches and fields, there are certain common features that emerge: first, the decision to migrate for healthcare is primarily made by the patient themselves and is perceived by them as being non-choice; second, the family plays a central role at all stages of the migration; and third, the migration has a catastrophic impact in terms of social and financial burden.{C}onclusion {I}n conclusion, this scoping review highlights the underexplored relationship between global therapeutic mobility and cancer, emphasising the need for increased research efforts to understand the global dynamics of cancer care mobility.},
  keywords = {{S}ystematic {R}eview ; {ONCOLOGY} ; {H}ealth ; {H}ealth {S}ervices ; {A}ccessibility},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{BMJ} {O}pen},
  volume = {15},
  numero = {6},
  pages = {e089780 [11 p.]},
  ISSN = {2044-6055},
  year = {2025},
  DOI = {10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089780},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010094216},
}