Observational studyCurrent oncology reports2018
Decline in Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Populations? Results of the EDIFICE Surveys.
Observational study in Current oncology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- mHealth Interventions to Improve Cancer Screening and Early Detection: Scoping Review of Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Implementation of a Low-Cost Quality Improvement Intervention Increases Adherence to Cancer Screening Guidelines and Reduces Healthcare Costs at a University Medical Center.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020Observational
- Concurrent participation in screening for cervical, breast, and bowel cancer in England.Journal of medical screening · 2020Article
- Knowledge-Based Cancer Control.Current oncology reports · 2018Review
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe studied cancer screening over time and social vulnerability via surveys of representative populations.
methodsIndividuals aged 50-75 years with no personal history of cancer were questioned about lifetime participation in screening tests, compliance (adherence to recommended intervals [colorectal, breast and cervical cancer]) and opportunistic screening (prostate and lung cancer).
resultsThe proportion of vulnerable/non-vulnerable individuals remained stable between 2011 and 2016. In 2011, social vulnerability had no impact on screening participation, nor on compliance. In 2014, however, vulnerability was correlated with less frequent uptake of colorectal screening (despite an organised programme) and prostate cancer screening (opportunistic), and also with reduced compliance with recommended intervals (breast and cervical cancer screening). In 2016, the trends observed in 2014 were substantiated and even extended to breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening uptakes. Social vulnerability has an increasingly negative impact on cancer screening attendance. The phenomenon was identified in 2014 and had expanded by 2016.
conclusionAlthough organised programmes have been shown to ensure equitable access to cancer screening, this remains a precarious achievement requiring regular monitoring. Further studies should focus on attitudes of vulnerable populations and on ways to improve cancer awareness campaigns.
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.