ArticlePsycho-oncology2016
Inequalities in cancer screening participation: examining differences in perceived benefits and barriers.
Article in Psycho-oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeted encouragement of GP consultations for possible cancer symptoms: a randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Absolute and relative socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation among adults aged 40-74 years in South Korea: a repeated cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators of breast cancer screening services amongst black African women in high income countries: a systematic review and meta-aggregation.Discover public health · 2026Review
- Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for breast cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey, 2009-2021.Epidemiology and health · 2025Article
- Article
- Socioeconomic inequalities in patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction in the North-West of England, UK: a three-centre retrospective cohort study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- Socio-economic inequalities in cancer survival: how do they translate into Number of Life-Years Lost?British journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Cancer patient perspective in the arena of COVID-19 pandemic.Psycho-oncology · 2022Article
- The Prevention Behaviors and Impact Mechanisms Among Different Chinese Social Classes at the Early Stage of COVID-19 Pandemic.Psychology research and behavior management · 2022Article
- Intentions to participate in cervical and colorectal cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods study.Preventive medicine · 2021Article
- Risk Factors of Inadequate Bowel Preparation for Screening Colonoscopy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Fundamental social causes of inequalities in colorectal cancer mortality: A study of behavioral and medical mechanisms.Heliyon · 2020Article
- Unique contribution of education to behavioral and psychosocial antecedents of health in a national sample of African Americans.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2019Article
- How Do Women Interpret the NHS Information Leaflet about Cervical Cancer Screening?Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019Article
- Understanding the impact of socioeconomic differences in colorectal cancer survival: potential gain in life-years.British journal of cancer · 2019Article
- What benefits and harms are important for a decision about cervical screening? A study of the perspective of different subgroups of women.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
- Latina and Black/African American Women's Perspectives on Cancer Screening and Cancer Screening Reminders.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveInequalities exist in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake, with people from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds less likely to participate. Identifying the facilitators and barriers to screening uptake is important to addressing screening disparities. We pooled data from 2 trials to examine educational differences in psychological constructs related to guaiac fecal occult blood testing.
methodsPatients (n = 8576) registered at 7 general practices in England, within 15 years of the eligible age range for screening (45-59.5 years), were invited to complete a questionnaire. Measures included perceived barriers (emotional and practical) and benefits of screening, screening intentions, and participant characteristics including education.
resultsAfter data pooling, 2181 responses were included. People with high school education or no formal education reported higher emotional and practical barriers and were less likely to definitely intend to participate in screening, compared with university graduates in analyses controlling for study arm and participant characteristics. The belief that one would worry more about CRC after screening and concerns about tempting fate were strongly negatively associated with education. In a model including education and participant characteristics, respondents with low emotional barriers, low practical barriers, and high perceived benefits were more likely to definitely intend to take part in screening.
conclusionsIn this analysis of adults approaching the CRC screening age, there was a consistent effect of education on perceived barriers toward guaiac fecal occult blood testing, which could affect screening decision making. Interventions should target specific barriers to reduce educational disparities in screening uptake and avoid exacerbating inequalities in CRC mortality.
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.