Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18221519›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2008

Attitudes to colorectal cancer screening among ethnic minority groups in the UK.

Kathryn A Robb, Ijeoma Solarin, Emily Power, Wendy Atkin, Jane Wardle

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Geographical Disparities in Faecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation and Positivity Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Sociodemographic variation in symptomatic faecal immunochemical testing return: a population-based analysis of 125 659 patients.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  4. Language as a barrier to colorectal cancer screening in flanders: an ecological study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025
    Article
  5. Cancer Screening, Knowledge, and Fatalism among Chinese, Korean, and South Asian Residents of New York City.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A Cross-Sectional Assessment of Literacy and Awareness, Attitudes, and Beliefs About Colorectal Cancer and Its Screening in Riyadh Region.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Factors influencing participation in colorectal cancer screening-a qualitative study in an ethnic and socio-economically diverse inner city population.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kathryn A RobbCancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, UCL, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. k.robb@ucl.ac.uk
Ijeoma Solarin
Emily Power
Wendy Atkin
Jane Wardle
University College London · GBCancer Research UK · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 8933Department of HealthMedical Research Council G9615910
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal screening by Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (FS) is under evaluation in the UK. Evidence from existing cancer screening programmes indicates lower participation among minority ethnic groups than the white-British population. To ensure equality of access, it is important to understand attitudes towards screening in all ethnic groups so that barriers to screening acceptance can be addressed.

methodsOpen- and closed-ended questions on knowledge about colorectal cancer and attitudes to FS screening were added to Ethnibus--a monthly, nationwide survey of the main ethnic minority communities living in the UK (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, African, and Chinese). Interviews (n = 875) were conducted, face-to-face, by multilingual field-workers, including 125 interviews with white-British adults.

resultsAll respondents showed a notable lack of knowledge about causes of colorectal cancer, which was more pronounced in ethnic minority than white-British adults. Interest in FS screening was uniformly high (>60%), with more than 90% of those interested saying it would provide 'peace of mind'. The most frequently cited barrier to screening 'in your community' was embarrassment, particularly among ethnic minority groups.

conclusionEducational materials should recognise that non-white groups may be less knowledgeable about colorectal cancer. The findings of the current study suggest that embarrassment may be a greater deterrent to participation to FS screening among ethnic minority groups, but this result requires exploration in further research.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHealth SurveysHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMinority GroupsPatient Acceptance of Health CareReligionSex FactorsSocial Class

Identifiers

PMID18221519
PMCPMC2267180
OpenAlexW2031419187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.