ArticlePreventive medicine reports2020
Association between colorectal cancer testing and insurance type: Evidence from the Swiss Health Interview Survey 2012.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs in Switzerland - Quo Vadis?International journal of public health · 2025Article
- Change in colorectal cancer (CRC) testing rates associated with the introduction of the first organized screening program in canton Uri, Switzerland: Evidence from insurance claims data analyses from 2010 to 2018.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Ten-year changes in colorectal cancer screening in Switzerland: The Swiss Health Interview Survey 2007, 2012 and 2017.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Temporal trends and regional disparities in cancer screening utilization: an observational Swiss claims-based study.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Change in Colorectal Cancer Tests Submitted for Reimbursement in Switzerland 2012-2018: Evidence from Claims Data of a Large Insurance.International journal of public health · 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both colonoscopy and fecal occult blood test (FOBT) are commonly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but colonoscopy costs much more than FOBT. Swiss insurance offers high or low deductibles and choice of basic or private insurance. We hypothesized that high deductibles and basic insurance discourage colonoscopy, but do not change FOBT rates. We determined the proportion of patients tested for CRC in Switzerland (colonoscopy within 10 years, FOBT within 2 years), and determined associations with health insurance type. We extracted data on 50-75-year-olds from the Swiss Health Interview Surveys of 2012 to determine colonoscopy and FOBT testing rates (n = 7335). Multivariate logistic regression models estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) of CRC testing associated with health insurance type (deductible and private insurance), adjusted for socio-demographic factors (age, gender, education, income) and self-rated health. The weighted proportion of individuals tested for CRC within recommended intervals was 39.5%. Testing with colonoscopy was significantly associated with private insurance (PR 1.85, 95% CI: 1.46-2.35) and low deductible (PR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.56-2.57). Testing with FOBT was significantly associated with deductible (PR 1.71, 95%CI:1.09-2.68) but not with private insurance. About 60% of the Swiss population was not current with CRC testing. After adjusting for covariates, private insurance and low deductible was significantly associated with higher prevalence of CRC testing, indicating that waiving the deductible could increase CRC screening uptake and reduce health inequality.
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.