Observational studyBMJ open2015
Variation in cervical and breast cancer screening coverage in England: a cross-sectional analysis to characterise districts with atypical behaviour.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Barriers to Breast Cancer Screening, and of Interventions Designed to Increase Participation, Among Women of Black African and Black Caribbean Descent in the UK.Psycho-oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Barriers to breast and cervical cancer screening uptake among Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic women in the United Kingdom: evidence from a mixed-methods systematic review.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- The breast cancer paradox: A systematic review of the association between area-level deprivation and breast cancer screening uptake in Europe.Cancer epidemiology · 2019Pooled it
- Investigating the acceptability of cervical screening, using conventional clinician-taken cervical samples or urine self-sampling, at 6 weeks postnatal: A cross-sectional questionnaire.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Breast cancer screening coverage is severely reduced among women who reside in segregated areas: a cross-sectional investigation in Hungary.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Factors associated with cervical screening coverage: a longitudinal analysis of English general practices from 2013 to 2022.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Social factors and age play a significant role in cervical cancer and advanced-stage disease among Danish women.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Priorities for implementation research on diagnosing cancer in primary care: a consensus process.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Link between the referring physician and breast and cervical cancers screening: a cross-sectional study in France.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Inequalities in cancer screening participation between adults with and without severe mental illness: results from a cross-sectional analysis of primary care data on English Screening Programmes.British journal of cancer · 2023Article
- A consensus approach: Understanding the support needs of women in Newport West, Wales, to participate in breast screening.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Supporting the implementation of new healthcare technologies by investigating generalisability of pilot studies using area-level statistics.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Evaluating the impact of a novel behavioural science informed animation upon breast cancer screening uptake: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Social and territorial inequalities in breast and cervical cancers screening uptake: a cross-sectional study in France.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Experiences of cervical screening participation and non-participation in women from minority ethnic populations in Scotland.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- The Role of Socio-Demographic Factors in the Coverage of Breast Cancer Screening: Insights From a Quantile Regression Analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Coverage determinants of breast cancer screening in Flanders: an evaluation of the past decade.International journal for equity in health · 2020Article
- Forgone Health and Economic Benefits Associated with Socioeconomic Differences in Organized Cervical Cancer Screening.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2019Article
- Barriers to cervical screening among older women from hard-to-reach groups: a qualitative study in England.BMC women's health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesReducing cancer screening inequalities in England is a major focus of the 2011 Department of Health cancer outcome strategy. Screening coverage requires regular monitoring in order to implement targeted interventions where coverage is low. This study aimed to characterise districts with atypical coverage levels for cervical or breast screening.
designObservational study of district-level coverage in the English Cervical and Breast screening programmes in 2012.
settingEngland, UK.
participantsAll English women invited to participate in the cervical (age group 25-49 and 50-64) and breast (age group 50-64) screening programmes. OUTCOMES: Risk adjustment models for coverage were developed based on district-level characteristics. Funnel plots of adjusted coverage were constructed, and atypical districts examined by correlation analysis.
resultsVariability in coverage was primarily explained by population factors, whereas general practice characteristics had little independent effect. Deprivation and ethnicity other than white, Asian, black or mixed were independently associated with poorer coverage in both screening programmes, with ethnicity having the strongest effect; by comparison, the influence of Asian, black or mixed ethnic minority was limited. Deprivation, ethnicity and urbanisation largely accounted for the lower cervical screening coverage in London. However, for breast screening, being located in London remained a strong negative predictor. A subset of districts was identified as having atypical coverage across programmes. Correlates of deprivation in districts with relatively low adjusted coverage were substantially different from overall correlates of deprivation. DISCUSSION: These results inform the continuing drive to reduce avoidable cancer deaths in England, and encourage implementation of targeted interventions in communities residing in districts identified as having atypically low coverage. Sequential implementation to monitor the impact of local interventions would help accrue evidence on 'what works'.
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.