Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16476749›Full record

ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2006

Socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, location of service, and uptake of breast cancer screening in North Derbyshire, UK.

Ravi Maheswaran, Tim Pearson, Hannah Jordan, David Black

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

75 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Mobile Cancer Screening Programs: A Systematic Review of Implementation Challenges and Population Access.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. A Model-Based Meta-Analysis of Willingness to Participate in Cancer Screening.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. False-positive results in the randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 ("Age" trial).Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2010
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Behind the Screen: An Exploratory Study of Factors Influencing Breast Screening Uptake in Lancashire (UK).Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ravi MaheswaranPublic Health GIS Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK. r.maheswaran@sheffield.ac.uk
Tim Pearson
Hannah Jordan
David Black

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimThis study examined the association between socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, urban-rural status, location and type of screening unit, and breast screening uptake. Screening was provided at 13 locations--1 fixed and 12 mobile (3 at non-health locations).

methodsThe study examined data from 1998 to 2001 for 34 868 women aged 50-64 years, calculated road travel distance, used 1991 enumeration district level Townsend socioeconomic deprivation scores, and a ward level urban-rural classification.

resultsOdds of attendance for screening decreased with increasing socioeconomic deprivation, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.64 (95%CI 0.59 to 0.70) in the most deprived relative to the least deprived category. 87% of women lived within 8 km of their screening location. The odds ratio for a 10 km increase in distance was 0.87 (95%CI 0.79 to 0.95). The odds ratios were 1.18 (95%CI 1.08 to 1.28) for screening at a non-health relative to a health location, 1.00 (95%CI 0.94 to 1.07) for the fixed site relative to the mobile unit and 1.00 (95%CI 0.91 to 1.09) for mainly rural relative to mainly urban areas.

conclusionsSocioeconomic inequality in breast screening uptake seems to persist in an established service. There was a small decrease with increasing distance, no difference between fixed and mobile units, and no difference between urban and rural areas but uptake seemed to be higher at non-health sites. Further work is needed to identify effective methods of decreasing socioeconomic inequalities in uptake and to confirm if non-health locations are associated with higher screening uptake.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningBreast NeoplasmsEnglandFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMammographyMiddle AgedMobile Health UnitsOdds RatioPatient Acceptance of Health CareRural HealthSocioeconomic FactorsTravelUrban Health

Identifiers

PMID16476749
PMCPMC2465550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.