Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28501944›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2017

Sociodemographic predictors of participation in colorectal cancer screening.

Ulrik Deding, Anna Sharon Henig, Ann Salling, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Henrik Bøggild

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Socio-economic predictors and between-hospital variation in permanent stoma rates after segmental resection of colorectal cancer. A population-based register study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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.

Ulrik DedingDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Public Health and Epidemiology Group, Aalborg University, Niels Jernes Vej 14, 9220, Aalborg Øst, Denmark. ulrikdeding@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8263-2989
Anna Sharon HenigDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Public Health and Epidemiology Group, Aalborg University, Niels Jernes Vej 14, 9220, Aalborg Øst, Denmark.
Ann SallingDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Public Health and Epidemiology Group, Aalborg University, Niels Jernes Vej 14, 9220, Aalborg Øst, Denmark.
Christian Torp-PedersenDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Public Health and Epidemiology Group, Aalborg University, Niels Jernes Vej 14, 9220, Aalborg Øst, Denmark.
Henrik BøggildDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Public Health and Epidemiology Group, Aalborg University, Niels Jernes Vej 14, 9220, Aalborg Øst, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeColorectal cancer screening by inviting citizens to complete a test for blood in faeces was initiated in Denmark in 2014. We have examined sociodemographic predictors that influence participation to identify factors that could be targeted to increase compliance.

methodsNational registers were used to link data on invitations for colorectal cancer screening in Denmark from 2014 to 2015. Region of residence, age, gender, immigration status, income, educational level and marital status were identified. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the risk of non-participation for invited citizens while adjusting for all other sociodemographic variables.

resultsA total of 854,237 individuals were included in the analysis. The national participation proportion was 65.33%, with significant differences between sociodemographic groups. Participation proportions were the lowest in non-Western immigrants (53.00%), individuals without a partner (54.05%) and those in the lowest income quartile (54.65%), with subgroup participation as low as 40.56%. The highest participation proportion was seen in individuals in the highest income quartile (71.56%). Region of residence, age, gender, educational level, income quartile, marital status and immigration status all had statistically significant independent differences in risk of non-participation after full model adjustment.

conclusionParticipation in colorectal cancer screening was high in Denmark in 2014 and 2015. Large differences in participation were seen between sociodemographic subgroups, potentially resulting in social inequality in the benefits from screening. Future efforts to increase participation should focus on the low compliance subgroups, such as singles, non-Western immigrants and people from the lowest socioeconomic groups.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationAgedColorectal NeoplasmsDemographyEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisSocioeconomic FactorsColorectal cancerComplianceInequalityParticipationScreening

Identifiers

PMID28501944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.