Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26487452›Full record

ArticleHealth economics review2015

Breast and cervical cancer screening in Great Britain: Dynamic interrelated processes.

Alexander Labeit, Frank Peinemann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Barriers and facilitators to participation in breast, bowel and cervical cancer screening in rural Victoria: A qualitative study.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexander LabeitSchool of Health and Related Sciences, Regent Court, University of Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. alabeit.publications@gmail.com.
Frank PeinemannFOM University of Applied Science for Economics & Management, Leimkugelstr. 6, 45141, Essen, Germany. pubmedprjournal@gmail.com.
FOM University of Applied Sciences for Economics and Management · DEUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

No previous analysis has investigated the determinants of screening uptake for breast and cervical cancer screening for possible spillover effects from one type of screening examination to the other type of screening examination with a dynamic bivariate panel probit model. For our analysis, we used a dynamic random effects bivariate panel probit model with initial conditions (Wooldridge-type estimator) and dependent variables were the participation of breast and cervical cancer screening in the recent year. The balanced panel sample consisted of 844 women from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) from the time period 1992 to 2008. Our analysis showed the high relevance of past screening behaviour and the importance of state dependency for the same and the other type of cancer screening examinations even after controlling for covariates and unobserved heterogeneity. The uptake for breast and cervical cancer screening was higher when the same screening examination was done one or three years earlier. This result is in accordance with the medical screening programmes in Great Britain. With regard to breast and cervical cancer screening positive spillover effects existed between screening examinations in the third order lags. Women with a previous visit to a general practitioner and individuals in the recommended age groups had a higher uptake for breast and cervical cancer screening. Other socioeconomic and health related variables had non-uniform results in both screening examinations. Promoting the uptake of one female prevention activity could also enhance the uptake of the other prevention activity.

Indexed as

Bivariate probitDynamic panel probit modelHealth check-upsPreventive medicineScreeningState dependence

Identifiers

PMID26487452
PMCPMC4615931
OpenAlexW1916780790

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.