Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23151053›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2012

Identifying specific non-attending groups in breast cancer screening--population-based registry study of participation and socio-demography.

Line Flytkjær Jensen, Anette Fischer Pedersen, Berit Andersen, Peter Vedsted

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  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

4 authors.

Line Flytkjær JensenThe Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, Aarhus C 8000, Denmark. line.jensen@alm.au.dk
Anette Fischer Pedersen
Berit Andersen
Peter Vedsted

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA population-based breast cancer screening programme was implemented in the Central Denmark Region in 2008-09. The objective of this registry-based study was to examine the association between socio-demographic characteristics and screening participation and to examine whether the group of non-participants can be regarded as a homogeneous group of women.

methodParticipation status was obtained from a regional database for all women invited to the first screening round in the Central Denmark Region in 2008-2009 (n=149,234). Participation data was linked to registries containing socio-demographic information. Distance to screening site was calculated using ArcGIS. Participation was divided into 'participants' and 'non-participants', and non-participants were further stratified into 'active non-participants' and 'passive non-participants' based on whether the woman called and cancelled her participation or was a 'no-show'.

resultsThe screening participation rate was 78.9%. In multivariate analyses, non-participation was associated with older age, immigrant status, low OECD-adjusted household income, high and low level education compared with middle level education, unemployment, being unmarried, distance to screening site >20 km, being a tenant and no access to a vehicle. Active and passive non-participants comprised two distinct groups with different socio-demographic characteristics, with passive non-participants being more socially deprived compared with active non-participants.

conclusionNon-participation was associated with low social status e.g. low income, unemployment, no access to vehicle and status as tenant. Non-participants were also more likely than participants to be older, single, and of non-Danish origin. Compared to active non-participants, passive non-participants were characterized by e.g. lower income and lower educational level. Different interventions might be warranted to increase participation in the two non-participant groups.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualDenmarkEarly Detection of CancerEducational StatusFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareRegistriesSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID23151053
PMCPMC3526420

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.