ArticleEuropean journal of public health2015
Age differences in mammography screening reconsidered: life course trajectories in 13 European countries.
Article in European journal of public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social support and country-level factors associated with cancer screening participation in 18 European countries: a multilevel analysis of the European Health Interview Survey.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- The education gradient in cancer screening participation: a consistent phenomenon across Europe?International journal of public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is the most common cause of cancer mortality among European women. To reduce mortality risk, early detection through mammography screening is recommended from the age of 50 years onwards. Although timely initiation is crucial for cancer prognosis, the temporal dimension has largely been ignored in research. In cross-sectional research designs, it is not clear whether reported age differences reflect 'true' age effects and/or presumed period effects resulting from evolving knowledge and screening programmes.
methodsWe use longitudinal data from the survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement (SHARELIFE, 2008), which enables to cast light on age differences by providing retrospective information on the age at which women commenced regular mammography screening. Moreover, the cross-national dimension of the SHARE permits framing the results within the context of nationally implemented screening programmes. By means of the Kaplan-Meier procedure, we examine age trajectories for five 10-year birth cohorts in 13 European countries (n = 13 324).
resultsBirth cohorts show very similar age trajectories for each country. Along with the observation that large country differences and country-specific deviations coincide with screening programme characteristics, this suggests strong period effects related to implemented national screening programmes.
conclusionAge differences in mammography screening generally reflect the period effects of national screening policies. This leaves little room for economic theories about human health capital that leave out the institutional context of preventive health care provision.
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.