Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31906964›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Utilization of cervical cancer screening among migrants and non-migrants in Germany: results from a large-scale population survey.

Patrick Brzoska, Tuğba Aksakal, Yüce Yilmaz-Aslan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved women in Europe.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Patrick BrzoskaHealth Services Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausen-Straße 50, 58448, Witten, Germany. patrick.brzoska@uni-wh.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6489-5198
Tuğba AksakalHealth Services Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausen-Straße 50, 58448, Witten, Germany.
Yüce Yilmaz-AslanBielefeld University, School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology & International Public Health, 33501, Bielefeld, Germany.
Witten/Herdecke University · DEBielefeld University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies from European and non-European countries have shown that migrants utilize cervical cancer screening less often than non-migrants. Findings from Germany are inconsistent. This can be explained by several limitations of existing investigations, comprising residual confounding and data which is restricted to only some regions of the country. Using data from a large-scale and nationwide population survey and applying the Andersen Model of Health Services Use as the theoretical framework, the aim of the present study was to examine the role that different predisposing, enabling and need factors have for the participation of migrant and non-migrant women in cervical cancer screening in Germany.

methodsWe used data from the 'German Health Update 2014/2015' survey on n = 12,064 women ≥20 years of age. The outcome of interest was the participation in cancer screening (at least once in lifetime vs. no participation). The outcome was compared between the three population groups of non-migrants, migrants from EU countries and migrants from non-EU countries. We employed multivariable logistic regression to examine the role of predisposing, enabling and need factors.

resultsNon-EU and EU migrant women reported a lower utilization of cervical cancer screening (50.1 and 52.7%, respectively) than non-migrant women (57.2%). The differences also remained evident after adjustment for predisposing, enabling and need factors. The respective adjusted odds ratios (OR) for non-EU and EU migrants were OR = 0.67 (95%-CI = 0.55-0.81) and OR = 0.80 (95%-CI = 0.66-0.97), respectively. Differences between migrants and non-migrants were particularly pronounced for younger age groups. Self-rated health was associated with participation in screening only in non-migrants, with a poorer health being indicative of a low participation in cancer screening.

conclusionsThe disparities identified are in line with findings from studies conducted in other countries and are indicative of different obstacles this population group encounters in the health system. Implementing patient-oriented health care through diversity-sensitive health services is necessary to support informed decision-making.

Indexed as

AdultEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGermanyHealth Care SurveysHumansMiddle AgedTransients and MigrantsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung AdultCervical cancerGermanyMigrantsScreeningSurveyUtilization

Identifiers

PMID31906964
PMCPMC6945536
OpenAlexW3003134945

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.