ArticleBMC family practice2018
Cancer screening inequities in a time of primary care reform: a population-based longitudinal study in Ontario, Canada.
Article in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What Interventions Work to Reduce Cost Barriers to Primary Healthcare in High-Income Countries? A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Pooled it
- Building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in public health: a cluster randomized trial.BMC public health · 2021Trial
- Unpacking cancer diagnosis among Latin Americans in Canada: disparities and protective patterns.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026Article
- Optimizing Care Pathways from Screening/Detection to Survivorship for Early Age Onset Cancer Patients in Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Mammographic screening and time to breast cancer diagnosis among immigrants and long-term residents in Ontario.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Physician payment models and preventive cancer screening: a population-based retrospective cohort analysis from Ontario, Canada.Family practice · 2025Article
- Article
- Exploring barriers and enablers to implementation of cancer screening among primary care professionals seeing marginalized patients.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Initiatives to increase breast and cervical cancer-related knowledge, screening, and health behaviours among Black women.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2025Article
- Article
- Access to cancer clinical trials for racialised older adults: an equity-focused rapid scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- The potential benefits of "community champions" in the healthcare system.Healthcare management forum · 2023Article
- Cancer Screening Disparities Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Disparities in access to primary care are growing wider in Canada.Healthcare management forum · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Lower participation among immigrants in colorectal cancer screening in Norway.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Do changes in primary care service use over time differ by neighbourhood income? Population-based longitudinal study in British Columbia, Canada.International journal for equity in health · 2022Article
- Care in the Community: Opportunities to improve cancer screening uptake for people living with low income.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Measuring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on organized cancer screening and diagnostic follow-up care in Ontario, Canada: A provincial, population-based study.Preventive medicine · 2021Observational
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care has been reformed in recent years in Ontario, Canada, with a move away from traditional fee-for-service to enhanced fee-for-service and capitation-based models. It is unclear how new models have affected disparities in cancer screening. We evaluated whether Ontario's enhanced fee-for-service model was associated with a change in the gaps in cancer screening for people living with low income and people who are foreign-born.
methodsWe conducted a population-based longitudinal analysis from 2002 to 2013 of Ontario family physicians who transitioned from traditional fee-for-service to enhanced fee-for-service. The binary outcomes of interest were adherence to cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Outcomes were analyzed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Analyses produced annual odds ratios comparing the odds of being up-to-date for screening among patients in enhanced fee-for-service versus patients in traditional fee-for-service for each social stratum separately. We calculated the ratios of stratum-specific odds ratios to assess whether the transition from traditional to enhanced fee-for-service was associated with a change in screening gaps between immigrants and long-term residents, and between people in the lowest and highest neighbourhood income quintiles.
resultsThroughout the study period, cancer screening was consistently lower among immigrants and among people in the lowest income quintile. Transition to enhanced fee-for-service was generally associated with increased screening uptake for all, however for most years, ratios of ratios were significantly less than 1 for all three cancer screening types, indicating that there was a widening of the screening gap between immigrants and long-term residents and between people living in the lowest vs. highest income quintile associated with transitions.
conclusionThe transition to enhanced fee-for-service in Ontario was generally associated with a widening of screening inequities for foreign-born and low-income patients.
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.