ArticleBritish journal of cancer2010
Socioeconomic position and participation in colorectal cancer screening.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Inequalities and risk factors related to non-participation in colorectal cancer screening programmes: a systematic review.European journal of public health · 2021Pooled it
- Non-participation in systematic screening for osteoporosis-the ROSE trial.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Effect of screening and lifestyle counselling on incidence of ischaemic heart disease in general population: Inter99 randomised trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2014Trial
- Trial
- Association Between Socioeconomic Position and Diagnosis, Treatment and Survival of Patients With Stage I-III Rectal Cancer in the Netherlands.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Evolving attitudes towards cancer screening: a 2024 update of UK population views.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Risk of colorectal cancer by socioeconomic position and history of mental illness - a national nested case-control study.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Investigation into Knowledge and Adherence To Vaccination and Screening Campaigns among Immigrants in the Marche Region, Central Italy.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2025Article
- Loss in life expectancy after a colon cancer diagnosis by socioeconomic group: does the indicator of socioeconomic position matter?BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Cancer screening and its associated factors in hypertensive individuals: new insights from the 2021 STEPs national study in Iran.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Colon Cancer General Knowledge, Attitude and Awareness Channels: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Prevalence and social inequalities in the use of cancer screening tests in Campinas, Brazil (ISACamp 2014/15).Revista brasileira de epidemiologia = Brazilian journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Analysing Inequalities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Using an Individual Socioeconomic Status Index.Cancers · 2024Article
- Improving uptake of colorectal cancer screening by complex patients at an academic primary care practice: a feasibility study.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Article
- Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Literacy and Facilitators Related to a Free Screening Program in Thailand.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
- Knowledge, Compliance, and Inequities in Colon Cancer Screening in Spain: An Exploratory Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- [Actitudes e imágenes sociales sobre el cribado de cáncer colorrectal. Una aproximación exploratoria mediante grupos de discusión.]Revista espanola de salud publica · 2023Article
2 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening with faecal occult blood test (FOBT) has the potential to reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. Screening uptake is known to be inferior in people with low socioeconomic position (SEP) when compared with those with high position; however, the results of most previous studies have limited value because they are based on recall or area-based measures of socioeconomic position, and might thus be subject to selective participation and misclassification. In this study we investigated differences in CRC screening participation using register-based individual information on education, employment, and income to encompass different but related aspects of socioeconomic stratification. Also, the impact of ethnicity and cohabiting status was analysed.
methodsA feasibility study on CRC screening was conducted in two Danish counties in 2005 and 2006. Screening consisted of a self-administered FOBT kit mailed to 177 114 inhabitants aged 50-74 years. Information on individual socioeconomic status was obtained from Statistics Denmark.
resultsA total of 85 374 (48%) of the invited returned the FOBT kits. Participation was significantly higher in women than in men (OR=1.58 (1.55-1.61)), when all socioeconomic and demographic variables were included in the statistical model. Participation also increased with increasing level of education, with OR=1.38 (1.33-1.43) in those with a higher education compared with short education. Also, participation increased with increasing income levels, with OR=1.94 (1.87-2.01) in the highest vs lowest quintile. Individuals with a disability pension, the unemployed and self-employed people were significantly less likely to participate (OR=0.77 (0.74-0.80), OR=0.83 (0.80-0.87), and OR=0.85 (0.81-0.89), respectively). Non-western immigrants were less likely to participate (OR=0.62 (0.59-0.66)) in a model controlling for age, sex, and county; however, this difference might be attributed to low SEP in these ethnic groups ((OR=0.93 (0.87-0.99), when adjusting for SEP indicators).
conclusionThis study based on individual information on several socioeconomic dimensions in a large, unselected population allowed for identification of several specific subgroups within the population with low CRC screening participation. Improved understanding is needed on the effect of targeted information and other strategies in order to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in screening.
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.