Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22952783›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Access to cancer screening in people with learning disabilities in the UK: cohort study in the health improvement network, a primary care research database.

David P J Osborn, Laura Horsfall, Angela Hassiotis, Irene Petersen, Kate Walters, Irwin Nazareth

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Disability and Participation in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David P J OsbornMental Health Sciences Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom. d.osborn@ucl.ac.uk
Laura Horsfall
Angela Hassiotis
Irene Petersen
Kate Walters
Irwin Nazareth
University College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health JP/pat/L1623
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess whether people with learning disability in the UK have poorer access to cancer screening.

designFour cohort studies comparing people with and without learning disability, within the recommended age ranges for cancer screening in the UK. We used Poisson regression to determine relative incidence rates of cancer screening.

settingThe Health Improvement Network, a UK primary care database with over 450 General practices.

participantsIndividuals with a recorded diagnosis of learning disability including general diagnostic terms, specific syndromes, chromosomal abnormalities and autism in their General Practitioner computerised notes. For each type of cancer screening, a comparison cohort of up to six people without learning disability was selected for each person with a learning disability, using stratified sampling on age within GP practice.

main outcome measuresIncidence rate ratios for receiving 1) a cervical smear test, 2) a mammogram, 3) a faecal occult blood test and 4) a prostate specific antigen test.

resultsRelative rates of screening for all four cancers were significantly lower for people with learning disability. The adjusted incidence rate ratios (95% confidence intervals) were Cervical smears: Number eligible with learning disability = 6,254; IRR = 0.54 (0.52-0.56). Mammograms: Number eligible with learning disability = 2,956; IRR = 0.76 (0.72-0.81); Prostate Specific Antigen: Number eligible = 3,520; IRR = 0.87 (0.80-0.96) and Faecal Occult Blood Number eligible = 6,566; 0.86 (0.78-0.94). Differences in screening rates were less pronounced in more socially deprived areas. Disparities in cervical screening rates narrowed over time, but were 45% lower in 2008/9, those for breast cancer screening appeared to widen and were 35% lower in 2009.

conclusionDespite recent incentives, people with learning disability in the UK are significantly less likely to receive screening tests for cancer that those without learning disability. Other methods for reducing inequalities in access to cancer screening should be considered.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansLearning DisabilitiesMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareTime FactorsUnited KingdomUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID22952783
PMCPMC3430609
OpenAlexW2099187444

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.