Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27881528›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Life-course socioeconomic status and breast and cervical cancer screening: analysis of the WHO's Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE).

Tomi Akinyemiju, Kemi Ogunsina, Swati Sakhuja, Valentine Ogbhodo, Dejana Braithwaite

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Tomi AkinyemijuDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Kemi OgunsinaDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Swati SakhujaDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Valentine OgbhodoDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Dejana BraithwaiteDivision of Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSocioeconomic differences in screening have been well documented in upper-income countries; however, few studies have examined socioeconomic status (SES) over the life-course in relation to cancer screening in lower-income and middle-income countries. Here, we examine individual, parental and life-course SES differences in breast and cervical cancer screening among women in India, China, Mexico, Russia and South Africa.

settingData from the WHO's Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE) 2007-2008 data were used for survey-weighted multivariable regression analysis. We examined the association between individual, parental and life-course SES in relation to breast and cervical cancer screening using education-based and employment-based measures of SES.

participants22 283 women aged 18-65 years, recruited from China, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa.

resultsHaving a college degree (OR 4.18; 95% CI 2.36 to 7.40) increased the odds of breast cancer screening compared with no formal education. Women with higher parental SES were almost 10 times more likely to receive breast cancer screening (OR 9.84; 95% CI 1.75 to 55.5) compared with women with low parental SES. Stable higher life-course (OR 3.07; 95% CI 1.96 to 4.79) increased breast cancer screening by threefold and increased cervical cancer screening by more than fourfold (OR 4.35; 95% CI 2.94 to 6.45); however, declining life-course SES was associated with reduced breast cancer screening (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79) compared to low life-course SES.

conclusionsHigher individual, parental and life-course SES was positively associated with breast and cervical cancer screening, although education-based SES measures were stronger predictors of screening compared with employment-based measures. Improving knowledge of the benefits of cancer screening and integrating cancer screening into routine healthcare practice for low SES women are actionable strategies that may significantly improve screening rates in low-income and middle-income countries.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsEducational StatusFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareSocioeconomic FactorsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung AdultBreast Cancer screeningCervical cancer screeningLife-course socio-economic statusSocio-economic status

Identifiers

PMID27881528
PMCPMC5129035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.