ArticleJournal of medical screening2020
Concurrent participation in screening for cervical, breast, and bowel cancer in England.
Article in Journal of medical screening, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Increasing coverage in cervical and colorectal cancer screening by leveraging attendance at breast cancer screening: A cluster-randomised, crossover trial.PLoS medicine · 2024Trial
- Impact of screening participation on modelled mortality benefits of a multi-cancer early detection test by socioeconomic group in England.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2024Trial
- Modelled impact of a multi-cancer early detection screening programme on cancer treatment in England.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Modelled impact of a multi-cancer early detection screening programme on the demand for diagnostics in England.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Native American Women's Willingness to Screen for Both Cervical and Colorectal Cancer at Home.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- 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
- The association between health literacy and cancer screening participation: A cross-sectional study across three organised screening programmes in Denmark.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- The current and future cancer burden in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a Faith-Placed Health Education Service on Bowel Cancer Screening in Mosques in East London.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Factors associated with deferral or non-performance of an organized breast cancer screening program during the COVID-19 pandemic in France.Cancer medicine · 2024Observational
- Article
- Observational
- "It's cancer screening after all". Barriers to cervical and colorectal cancer screening and attitudes to promotion of self-sampling kits upon attendance for breast cancer screening.Journal of medical screening · 2023Article
- 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
- Supporting the implementation of new healthcare technologies by investigating generalisability of pilot studies using area-level statistics.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Article
- Cytology interpretation after a change to HPV testing in primary cervical screening: Observational study from the English pilot.Cancer cytopathology · 2022Observational
- Why do people take part in atrial fibrillation screening? Qualitative interview study in English primary care.BMJ open · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: To determine how many women participate in all three recommended cancer screening programmes (breast, cervical, and bowel). During their early 60s, English women receive an invitation from all the three programmes. Methods: For 3060 women aged 60–65 included in an England-wide breast screening case–control study, we investigated the number of screening programmes they participated in during the last invitation round. Additionally, using the Fingertips database curated by Public Health England, we explored area-level correlations between participation in the three cancer screening programmes and various population characteristics for all 7014 English general practices with complete data. Results: Of the 3060 women, 1086 (35%) participated in all three programmes, 1142 (37%) in two, 526 (17%) in one, and 306 (10%) in none. Participation in all three did not appear to be a random event (p < 0.001). General practices from areas with less deprivation, with more patients who are carers or have chronic illnesses themselves, and with more patients satisfied with the provided service were significantly more likely to attain high coverage rates in all programmes. Conclusions: Only a minority of English women is concurrently protected through all recommended cancer screening programmes. Future studies should consider why most women participate in some but not all recommended screening.
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.