ArticleHealth economics review2015
Breast and cervical cancer screening in Great Britain: Dynamic interrelated processes.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increasing coverage in cervical and colorectal cancer screening by leveraging attendance at breast cancer screening: A cluster-randomised, crossover trial.PLoS medicine · 2024Trial
- Utilising the COM-B model to interpret barriers and facilitators to cervical cancer screening in young women.Journal of health psychology · 2025Article
- "It's cancer screening after all". Barriers to cervical and colorectal cancer screening and attitudes to promotion of self-sampling kits upon attendance for breast cancer screening.Journal of medical screening · 2023Article
- Protocol of Breast Cancer Prevention Model with Addition of Breast Ultrasound to Routine Gynecological Visits as a Chance for an Early Diagnosis and Treatment in 25 to 49-Year-Old Polish Females.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- 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
- Current evidence on screening for renal cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2020Review
- Public attitudes towards screening for kidney cancer: an online survey.BMC urology · 2020Article
- Strong association between cervical and breast cancer screening behaviour among Danish women; A register-based cohort study.Preventive medicine reports · 2018Article
- Blood pressure and cholesterol level checks as dynamic interrelated screening examinations.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Breast and cervical cancer-screening uptake among females in Ardabil, northwest Iran: a community-based study.OncoTargets and therapy · 2017Article
- Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates-Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a 'One Stop' Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer.Frontiers in oncology · 2017Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.