Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33028278›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Never and under cervical cancer screening in Switzerland and Belgium: trends and inequalities.

Vladimir Jolidon, Vincent De Prez, Barbara Willems, Piet Bracke, Stéphane Cullati, Claudine Burton-Jeangros

Abstract 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 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

6 authors.

Vladimir JolidonInstitute of Sociological Research, University of Geneva, 40 Bd du Pont-d'Arve, 1211, Genève 4, Switzerland. vladimir.jolidon@unige.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2223-592X
Vincent De PrezDepartment of Sociology, Ghent University, Korte Meer 5, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Barbara WillemsDepartment of Sociology, Ghent University, Korte Meer 5, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Piet BrackeDepartment of Sociology, Ghent University, Korte Meer 5, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Stéphane CullatiInstitute of Sociological Research, University of Geneva, 40 Bd du Pont-d'Arve, 1211, Genève 4, Switzerland.
Claudine Burton-JeangrosInstitute of Sociological Research, University of Geneva, 40 Bd du Pont-d'Arve, 1211, Genève 4, Switzerland.

Funding

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek FWOOPR2018005701Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung 176115
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch on inequalities in cervical cancer screening (CCS) participation has overlooked the distinction between 'never-' and 'under-screeners' while different socioeconomic and demographic determinants may underlie 'non-' and 'under-' screening participation. This study examines socioeconomic and demographic inequalities in never and under CCS participation. We compare cross-national prevalence and trends among these two groups in Switzerland and Belgium, two countries with similar opportunistic CCS strategy but different healthcare systems.

methodsData on 38,806 women aged 20-70 from the Swiss Health Interview Survey (1992-2012) and 19,019 women aged 25-64 from the Belgian Health Interview Survey (1997-2013), both population-based cross-sectional nationally representative surveys, was analysed. Weighted adjusted prevalence ratios were estimated with multivariate Poisson regressions.

resultsOver the studied period, never screening prevalence was about 15% in both Switzerland and Belgium and under screening prevalence about 14.0%. Socioeconomic gradients were found among both never- and under-screeners. Higher income women had lower never and under screening prevalence in Switzerland and a similar gradient in education was observed in Belgium. Importantly, distinct socioeconomic and demographic determinants were found to underlie never and under screening participation. Never screening was significantly higher among foreign nationals in both countries and this association was not observed in under screening. Never screening prevalence was lower among older age groups, while under screening increased with older age. Over time, age inequalities diminished among never- and under- screeners in Switzerland while educational inequalities increased among never-screeners in Belgium.

conclusionFindings revealed that determinants of screening inequalities differed among never- and under-screeners and hence these should be addressed with different public health strategies. Crucially, socioeconomic and demographic inequalities were more pronounced among never-screeners who appeared to face more structural and persistent inequalities. Differences between the two countries should also be noted. The more liberal-type Swiss healthcare systems appeared to shape income-related screening inequalities, while education appeared to be a stronger determinant of never- and under-screening in Belgium.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedBelgiumCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSocioeconomic FactorsSwitzerlandYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33028278
PMCPMC7542418

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.