ArticleBMC health services research2014
Obstacles to the uptake of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings: what remains to be achieved by French national programmes?
Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers to cancer screening uptake and approaches to overcome them: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Inequalities and risk factors related to non-participation in colorectal cancer screening programmes: a systematic review.European journal of public health · 2021Pooled it
- Mailing Vaginal or Urine Self-Sampling Kits versus Conventional Invitation Letters: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Cervical Cancer Screening Attendance.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Trial
- The participation in cervical cancer screening is not altered by the Hawthorne effect among patients of doctors participating in the randomized clinical trial PaCUDAHL.BMC research notes · 2025Trial
- Determinants of Participation in the National Cancer Screening Program Among Older Korean Women: A Cross-Sectional Study Using Nationwide Population-Based Data.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic Determinants of Cervical Cancer Screening among Ever-Married Women in Jordan: Insights from the 2023 Jordan Population and Family Health Survey.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2026Article
- Migrant and ethnic inequalities in cervical cancer screening: exploring the role of cultural health capital using data from the Belgian Health Interview Survey.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Socioeconomic and geographic disparities of breast cancer incidence according to stage at diagnosis in France.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
- Article
- Mapping evidence on knowledge of breast cancer screening and its uptake among women in Ghana: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Breast and cervical cancer screening adherence in Jiangsu, China: An ecological perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Healthcare Voucher Scheme for Screening of Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Population-Based Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Socio-Territorial Inequities in the French National Breast Cancer Screening Programme-A Cross-Sectional Multilevel Study.Cancers · 2021Article
- Comparative benefit and cost-effectiveness of mailed-out faecal immunochemical tests vs collection at the general practitioner.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2021Article
- Out of reach? Correlates of cervical cancer underscreening in women with varying levels of healthcare interactions in a United States integrated delivery system.Preventive medicine · 2021Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Distribution and predictors associated with the use of breast cancer screening services among women in 14 low-resource countries.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Combined Effect of Health Status and Primary Care Use on Participation in Cancer Screening: The CONSTANCES Cohort.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- Predictors and Trend in Attendance for Breast Cancer Screening in Lithuania, 2006-2014.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Predictors of cervical cancer screening among Kenyan women: results of a nested case-control study in a nationally representative survey.BMC 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn France, equality in access to screening has been one of the main thrusts of public policies implemented between 2009 and 2013 (the national cancer plan). Our aim in this study was to analyse the obstacles to and levers for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening uptake and their trends over time.
methodsBased on representative data from the French Health Care and Health Insurance Survey (three independent, cross-sectional surveys: 2006, 2008, and 2010), multivariate logistic regressions were used to model the association between the nonuse of screening for the three cancers and various independent variables. Then, interactions with survey year dummies allowed the changes in the determinants of these cancer screenings over time to be estimated.
resultsWhereas the incentives for screening were strengthened during the period considered, cervical and breast cancer screenings decreased, and colorectal cancer screenings increased sharply (from 18.2% (95% CI = [17.0-19.4]) in 2006 to 38.9% (95% CI = [37.4-40.5] in 2010. Under-users of the three cancer screenings were primarily unskilled workers (ORcervix = 1.64 [1.38-1.95]), individuals without complementary health insurance (ORbreast = 2.05 [1.68-2.51]), or individuals with free complementary health insurance who more rarely use outpatient care. Moreover, individuals reporting either risky behaviours, namely heavy smokers (ORcolorectal = 1.70) and high-risk drinkers (ORcervix = 1.42) or very safe behaviours, namely neither smoking nor drinking, underused screenings. Despite the implementation of national programmes for breast and colorectal cancer screenings, the disparities and inequalities in screening uptake did not decrease over the study period.
conclusionsThese results demonstrate the need for additional primary prevention efforts targeting the identified under-users by focusing on, for instance, individuals with a very healthy lifestyle. Health authorities could also intensify their efforts to promote increased access to screening for the most disadvantaged individuals.
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.