Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20959827›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2010

Socioeconomic position and participation in colorectal cancer screening.

B L Frederiksen, T Jørgensen, K Brasso, I Holten, M Osler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2017
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 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

5 authors.

B L FrederiksenResearch Centre for Prevention and Health, Capital Region of Denmark, Glostrup University Hospital, Building 84/85, DK-2600 Glostrup, Denmark. birfre02@glo.regionh.dk
T Jørgensen
K Brasso
I Holten
M Osler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Socioeconomic FactorsAgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsDemographyDenmarkEarly Detection of CancerEducational StatusEmploymentEthnicityFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansIncomeMaleMedical History Taking

Identifiers

PMID20959827
PMCPMC2990593

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.