ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2016
Inclusion of populations at risk of advanced melanoma in an opportunistic targeted screening project involving general practitioners.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of socioeconomic factors and region of residence on cancer stage of malignant melanoma: a Danish nationwide population-based study.Clinical epidemiology · 2018Article
- Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study objective was to measure the rates of inclusion of populations at risk of advanced melanoma in a pilot targeted screening project involving general practitioners.
designThis cross-sectional database study compared the inclusion rates of patients who signed inclusion in a targeted screening project with those of patients who did not, during a period in which both groups of patients consulted investigators.
settingData were extracted from the national healthcare insurance records in western France from 11 April to 30 October 2011. PATIENTS: Patients, older than 18, considered for the data extraction had consulted one of the 78 participating GPs during the study period, and were affiliated with the national healthcare insurance.
main outcome measuresInclusion in the screening was the main outcome measure. Patients at risk of advanced melanoma were characterized by male gender, age over 50, low income, rural residence, farmer, and presence of chronic disease.
resultsA total of 57,279 patients consulted GPs during the inclusion period and 2711 (4.73%) were included in the targeted screening. Populations at risk of advanced melanoma were less included: men (OR = 0.67; 95%CI [0.61-0.73]; p < 0.001), older than 50 (OR = 0.67; 95%CI [0.60-0.74]; p < 0.001), low income (OR = 0.65; 95%CI [0.55-0.77]; p < 0.001), farmer (OR = 0.23; 95%CI [0.17-0.30]; p < 0.001) and presence of a chronic disease (OR = 0.87; 95%CI [0.77-0.98]; p < 0.028).
conclusionThis study demonstrated inequalities in the inclusion of patients in a melanoma screening. Patients at risk of advanced cancer were screened less often. Further studies should focus on GPs ability to identify and screen these patients. KEY POINTS Advanced melanoma is more frequently diagnosed in men, older patients and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, which leads to survival inequalities. • Despite the involvement of general practitioners, the implementation of targeted melanoma screening did not avoid inclusion inequalities. • Men, older patients, patients suffering from chronic diseases, and low-income patients were less likely to benefit from screening. • The display of a conventional or an alarmist poster in the waiting room did not statistically reduce these inclusion inequalities.
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.