ArticleDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2020
[Access to statutory skin cancer screening : Organizational and regional factors in Germany].
Article in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Skin cancer screening in the aging population in Saxony-Anhalt : Utilization, facilitating, and hindering factors].Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- General practitioners' perspectives on statutory skin cancer screening-A questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey in Germany.PloS one · 2024Article
- Opportunities to inform German residents about the possibility of skin cancer screening and to inform stakeholders to take appropriate actions: A qualitative approach.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- [Statutory skin cancer screening in Germany : Motivation and motives for participation versus nonparticipation].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2008, statutory skin cancer screening (gesetzliches Hautkrebsscreening, gHKS), conducted by dermatologists or general practitioners, was introduced in Germany. The aim was earlier detection of cancer and therefore improved health care delivery. To assess the success of the gHKS and to increase utilization, the opinion of the population on access to the gHKS is of great relevance.
objectivesThe study examines administrative and regional factors of access to the gHKS in Germany. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, a nationwide survey was conducted among statutory health insured persons aged 18 and over. They were interviewed by telephone about the gHKS with focus on the access to the gHKS. Descriptive statistics and subgroup analysis based on sociodemographic variables and physician specialties were performed.
resultsOverall, 1015 people were interviewed, of whom 359 (35.4%) had already utilized the gHKS. Most of them (38.3%) were informed about this service by their general practitioner. Most respondents (70%) preferred having the dermatologists conduct the screening and more participants consulted the dermatologist than the general practitioner for it (76% vs. 24%). At the dermatologist, the travel time to the gHKS was more often longer than 30 min (12% vs. 1%, p < 0.05) and the waiting times for appointments were more often longer than 2 weeks (67% vs. 18%, p < 0.05). Regional differences were identified for travel times and the choice of travel modalities.
conclusionsThe participants of the study preferred having a dermatologist conduct the gHKS. The dermatologist was also consulted more frequently by the gHKS participants. However, access in terms of travel and waiting times for the gHKS was longer at the dermatologist than at the general practitioner.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31659389What 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.