ArticleBMC public health2015
The validity of self-reported cancer screening history and the role of social disadvantage in Ontario, Canada.
Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adherence to Cervical Cancer Screening Programs in Migrant Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Regional and country-level trends in cervical cancer screening coverage in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic analysis of population-based surveys (2000-2020).PLoS medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Measuring the validity of survey questions on breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Kin KeeperJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Factors affecting compliance with pancreas surveillance in patients with familial/genetic risk.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Self-Reported Cervical Screening Status Among Pregnant Women.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Article
- The relationship between rural residence and cervical cancer screening in three sub-Saharan countries with different national screening policies.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Cervical and breast cancer screening outcomes among Métis people in Alberta, Canada.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Provincial Variation in Adherence to Breast Cancer Screening in Canada: Evidence From the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow's Health.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Leveraging mHealth Technologies for Public Health.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Review
- Observational
- Sexual orientation and gender identity inequities in cervical cancer screening by race and ethnicity.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
- Article
- Predictors of non-adherence to cervical cancer screening among immigrant women in Ontario, Canada.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- Gaps in Adhering to Pap Testing Recommendations and Related Barriers in a Sample of Young Adults in the US.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Non-adherence to cervical cancer screening recommendations among women in Eswatini: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Provincial variation in colorectal cancer screening adherence in Canada; evidence from the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow's Health.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Lower Utilization of Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Vegetarians, Adventist Health Study-2.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022Article
- Periodic screening for breast and cervical cancer in women with diabetes: a population-based cohort study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Challenges in the Recent Afghan Refugee Population: A Comprehensive Review Article.Cureus · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelf-report may not be an accurate method of determining cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening rates due to recall, acquiescence and social desirability biases, particularly for certain sociodemographic groups. Therefore, the aims of this study were to determine the validity of self-report of cancer screening in Ontario, Canada, both for people in the general population and for socially disadvantaged groups based on immigrant status, ethnicity, education, income, language ability, self-rated health, employment status, age category (for cervical cancer screening), and gender (for fecal occult blood testing).
methodsWe linked multiple data sources for this study, including the Canadian Community Health Survey and provincial-level health databases. Using administrative data as our gold standard, we calculated validity measures for self-report (i.e. sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, positive and negative predictive values), calculated report-to-record ratios, and conducted a multivariable regression analysis to determine which characteristics were independently associated with over-reporting of screening.
resultsSpecificity was less than 70% overall and for all subgroups for cervical and breast cancer screening, and sensitivity was lower than 80% overall and for all subgroups for fecal occult blood testing FOBT. Report-to-record ratios were persistently significantly greater than 1 across all cancer screening types, highest for the FOBT group: 1.246 [1.189-1.306]. Regression analyses showed no consistent patterns, but sociodemographic characteristics were associated with over-reporting for each screening type.
conclusionsWe have found that in Ontario, as in other jurisdictions, there is a pervasive tendency for people to over-report their cancer screening histories. Sociodemographic status also appears to influence over-reporting. Public health practitioners and policymakers need to be aware of the limitations of self-report and adjust their methods and interpretations accordingly.
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.