Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30157772›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2018

Cancer screening inequities in a time of primary care reform: a population-based longitudinal study in Ontario, Canada.

Aisha K Lofters, Amy Mark, Monica Taljaard, Michael E Green, Richard H Glazier, Simone Dahrouge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Unpacking cancer diagnosis among Latin Americans in Canada: disparities and protective patterns.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

6 authors.

Aisha K LoftersDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond St, Toronto, ON, M5B1W8, Canada. Aisha.lofters@utoronto.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-7322-0894
Amy MarkInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, G1 06, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON, M4N3M5, Canada.
Monica TaljaardInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, G1 06, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON, M4N3M5, Canada.
Michael E GreenInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, G1 06, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON, M4N3M5, Canada.
Richard H GlazierDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond St, Toronto, ON, M5B1W8, Canada.
Simone DahrougeInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, G1 06, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON, M4N3M5, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

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

Early Detection of CancerEmigrants and ImmigrantsHealthcare DisparitiesPovertyPrimary Health CareAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCapitation FeeColorectal NeoplasmsDelivery of Health CareFee-for-Service PlansFemaleGuideline AdherenceHealth Care ReformHumansCancer screeningHealth disparitiesHealth equityPrimary carePrimary care reform

Identifiers

PMID30157772
PMCPMC6116433

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.