ArticlePloS one2018
Does mammogram attendance influence participation in cervical and colorectal cancer screening? A prospective study among 1856 French women.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors promoting breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings participation: A systematic review.Psycho-oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Inequalities and risk factors related to non-participation in colorectal cancer screening programmes: a systematic review.European journal of public health · 2021Pooled it
- Comparative Effectiveness of 2 Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Women in the Rural US: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Effect of Patient Characteristics on Uptake of Screening Using a Mailed Human Papillomavirus Self-sampling Kit: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Does mailing unsolicited HPV self-sampling kits to women overdue for cervical cancer screening impact uptake of other preventive health services in a United States integrated delivery system?Preventive medicine · 2022Trial
- Concurrent utilisation of cancer screening tests in the general population aged 50-69: an analysis of the 2017 Swiss Health Survey.International journal of public health · 2026Article
- Iterative Situated Engagement Perspective: Meaning-Making Challenges Across Cancer Screening Phases.Cancers · 2025Article
- Factors associated with deferral or non-performance of an organized breast cancer screening program during the COVID-19 pandemic in France.Cancer medicine · 2024Observational
- How do women comply with cancer screenings? A study in four regions of France.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Concurrent participation in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes in Denmark: A nationwide registry-based study.Preventive medicine · 2023Article
- The Relationship between Healthcare Providers and Preventive Practices: Narratives on Access to Cancer Screening.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Association Between Body Mass Index and Cancer Screening Adherence Among Latinas in the United States and Puerto Rico.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- "Whilst you are here…" Acceptability of providing advice about screening and early detection of other cancers as part of the breast cancer screening programme.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Observational
- Concurrent participation in screening for cervical, breast, and bowel cancer in England.Journal of medical screening · 2020Article
- Predictors and Trend in Attendance for Breast Cancer Screening in Lithuania, 2006-2014.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to determine participation rates and factors associated with participation in colorectal (fecal occul blood test) and cervical cancer (Pap-smear) screening among a population of women participating in breast cancer screening.
methodsFrom August to October 2015, a self-administered questionnaire was sent by post to 2 900 women aged 50-65, living in Côte-d'Or, France, and who were up to date with mammogram screening. Polytomic logistic regression was used to identify correlates of participation in both cervical and colorectal cancer screenings. Participation in all 3 screenings was chosen as the reference.
resultsStudy participation rate was 66.3% (n = 1856). Besides being compliant with mammogram, respectively 78.3% and 56.6% of respondents were up to date for cervical and colorectal cancer screenings, while 46.2% were compliant with the 3 screenings. Consultation with a gynecologist in the past year was associated with higher chance of undergoing the 3 screenings or female cancer screenings (p<10-4), when consultation with a GP was associated with higher chance of undergoing the 3 screenings or organized cancer screenings (p<0.05). Unemployment, obesity, age>59 and yearly flu vaccine were associated with a lower involvement in cervical cancer screening. Women from high socio-economic classes were more likely to attend only female cancer screenings (p = 0.009). Finally, a low level of physical activity and tobacco use were associated with higher risk of no additional screening participation (p<10-3 and p = 0.027).
conclusionsAmong women participating in breast screening, colorectal and cervical cancer screening rates could be improved. Including communication about these 2 cancer screenings in the mammogram invitation could be worth to explore.
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.