Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26914376›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2017

Cancer screening in Portugal: sex differences in prevalence, awareness of organized programmes and perception of benefits and adverse effects.

Ana Rute Costa, Susana Silva, Pedro Moura-Ferreira, Manuel Villaverde-Cabral, Osvaldo Santos, Isabel do Carmo, Henrique Barros, Nuno Lunet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors.

Ana Rute CostaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Predictive Medicine and Public Health, University of Porto Medical School, Porto, Portugal.
Susana SilvaEPIUnit, Institute of Public Health, University of Porto (ISPUP), Porto, Portugal.
Pedro Moura-FerreiraInstitute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Manuel Villaverde-CabralInstitute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Osvaldo SantosInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Isabel do CarmoFaculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Henrique BarrosDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Predictive Medicine and Public Health, University of Porto Medical School, Porto, Portugal.
Nuno LunetDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Predictive Medicine and Public Health, University of Porto Medical School, Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer screening has contributed to downward trends in cancer mortality, but is also associated with adverse effects, which highlights the importance of promoting the participation based on informed decisions.

objectivesWe aimed to describe the use of cancer screening (either in organized programmes or as opportunistic screening), awareness of organized programmes and perception of its potential benefits and adverse effects, depicting possible sex differences. DESIGN AND

methodsWe evaluated 1624 Portuguese-speaking dwellers, aged between 16 and 79 years, through face-to-face interviews. To quantify sex differences, adjusted prevalence ratios and respective 95% confidence intervals were computed using Poisson regression.

resultsAmong eligible age groups, the lifetime prevalence of screening for breast and cervical cancers was 89.8 and 71.9%, respectively. The prevalence was 23.7% for colorectal cancer and no significant sex differences were observed. Prostate cancer screening was reported by 63.8% of men. Over half of the participants referred that cancers such as prostate, skin, lung and stomach should be screened for, in addition to those for which organized programmes are recommended. Reassurance by negative results was identified as the main potential benefit of screening by nearly one-third of men and women. Anxiety while waiting for results was the most mentioned potential adverse effect (60.4%); men refer less often this and financial costs, although statistical significance of these results was borderline.

conclusionsThis study provides a benchmark to plan and monitor the effects of awareness-raising interventions, as well as for international comparisons across countries with different cancer prevention and control structures.

Indexed as

AwarenessEarly Detection of CancerHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPoisson DistributionPortugalPrevalenceearly detection of cancerhealth knowledge, attitudes, practiceneoplasm

Identifiers

PMID26914376
PMCPMC5354027

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.