Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31659389›Full record

ArticleDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2020

[Access to statutory skin cancer screening : Organizational and regional factors in Germany].

Valerie Andrees, Gefion Girbig, Magdalene Krensel, Matthias Augustin, Nicole Zander

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Statutory skin cancer screening in Germany : Motivation and motives for participation versus nonparticipation].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2021
    Article
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

5 authors.

Valerie AndreesInstitut für Versorgungsforschung in der Dermatologie und bei Pflegeberufen (IVDP), Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland. v.andrees@uke.de.
Gefion GirbigInstitut für Versorgungsforschung in der Dermatologie und bei Pflegeberufen (IVDP), Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland.
Magdalene KrenselInstitut für Versorgungsforschung in der Dermatologie und bei Pflegeberufen (IVDP), Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland.
Matthias AugustinInstitut für Versorgungsforschung in der Dermatologie und bei Pflegeberufen (IVDP), Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland.
Nicole ZanderInstitut für Versorgungsforschung in der Dermatologie und bei Pflegeberufen (IVDP), Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Early Detection of CancerSkin NeoplasmsAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesGermanyHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedYoung AdultDermatologistsGeneral practitionersTravel timeUtilisationWaiting time

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.