ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2009
Inequalities in reported use of breast and cervical screening in Great Britain: analysis of cross sectional survey data.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 139 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
139 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Exploring Whether and How People Experiencing High Deprivation Access Diagnostic Services: A Qualitative Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved women in Europe.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Pooled it
- Adherence to Cervical Cancer Screening Programs in Migrant Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic review of reasons for and against asking patients about their socioeconomic contexts.International journal for equity in health · 2019Pooled it
- The breast cancer paradox: A systematic review of the association between area-level deprivation and breast cancer screening uptake in Europe.Cancer epidemiology · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- What do people fear about cancer? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of cancer fears in the general population.Psycho-oncology · 2017Pooled it
- Experiences of cervical screening and barriers to participation in the context of an organised programme: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.Psycho-oncology · 2017Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccination of young women in high-income countries: a qualitative systematic review and evidence synthesis.BMC public health · 2014Pooled it
- Non-participation in population-based disease prevention programs in general practice.BMC public health · 2012Pooled it
- HPV vaccination among ethnic minorities in the UK: knowledge, acceptability and attitudes.British journal of cancer · 2011Pooled it
- Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Acceptability of de-intensified screening for women at low risk of breast cancer: a randomised online experimental survey.BMC cancer · 2024Trial
- Impact of screening participation on modelled mortality benefits of a multi-cancer early detection test by socioeconomic group in England.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Informed Choice in the German Mammography Screening Program by Education and Migrant Status: Survey among First-Time Invitees.PloS one · 2015Trial
- Trial
- HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening - a randomised controlled trial.British journal of cancer · 2011Trial
- Awareness of cancer symptoms and anticipated help seeking among ethnic minority groups in England.British journal of cancer · 2009Trial
79 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the relation between women's reported use of breast and cervical screening and sociodemographic characteristics.
designCross sectional multipurpose survey.
settingPrivate households, Great Britain. Population 3185 women aged 40-74 interviewed in the National Statistics Omnibus Survey 2005-7.
main outcome measuresEver had a mammogram, ever had a cervical smear, and, for each, timing of most recent screen.
results91% (95% confidence interval 90% to 92%) of women aged 40-74 years reported ever having had a cervical smear, and 93% (92% to 94%) of those aged 53-74 years reported ever having had a mammogram; 3% (2% to 4%) of women aged 53-74 years had never had either breast or cervical screening. Women were significantly more likely to have had a mammogram if they lived in households with cars (compared with no car: one car, odds ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.62; two or more cars, odds ratio 2.65, 1.34 to 5.26), and in owner occupied housing (compared with rented housing: own with mortgage, odds ratio 2.12, 1.12 to 4.00; own outright, odds ratio 2.19, 1.39 to 3.43), but no significant differences by ethnicity, education, occupation, or region were found. For cervical screening, ethnicity was the most important predictor; white British women were significantly more likely to have had a cervical smear than were women of other ethnicity (odds ratio 2.20, 1.41 to 3.42). Uptake of cervical screening was greater among more educated women but was not significantly associated with cars, housing tenure, or region.
conclusionsMost (84%) eligible women report having had both breast and cervical screening, but 3% report never having had either. Some inequalities exist in the reported use of screening, which differ by screening type; indicators of wealth were important for breast screening and ethnicity for cervical screening. The routine collection within general practice of additional sociodemographic information would aid monitoring of inequalities in screening coverage and inform policies to correct them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.