ArticleDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2021
[Statutory skin cancer screening in Germany : Motivation and motives for participation versus nonparticipation].
Article in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2021. 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
- COVID-19 related decline in cancer screenings most pronounced for elderly patients and women in Germany: a claims data analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2008, statutory skin cancer screening (sSCS) was introduced in Germany for people aged ≥ 35 years with statutory health insurance (SHI). The aim is to diagnose malignant skin lesions at an early stage, reduce mortality and improve morbidity and quality of life. Although sSCS was introduced more than a decade ago, only a part of the public is aware of it.
objectivesWhat are the reasons for the low participation rate in sSCS in the eligible population? MATERIALS AND
methodsIn computer-assisted phone interviews with a representative population sample of N = 1015 persons aged ≥ 18 years with SHI attitude towards skin cancer, rate of use of sSCS and reasons for nonparticipation were surveyed in January 2019. Parts of the data were compared with previous surveys from 2011, 2013 and 2015.
resultsAmong the 1015 participants 40% were concerned about skin cancer (2011: 45%; 2013: 51%; 2015: 46%). Of the respondents 75.4% were authorised to use sSCS. Of these 52.6% had never participated in sSCS before. However, participation increased with age. Further, the nonparticipation rate for those with a high school-leaving certificate (45%) was significantly lower than for those with a lower schooling level (58%). The option for sSCS was unknown to 35% of nonparticipants. As a reason for nonparticipation 20% mentioned a lack of time, while 58% saw no need for it because they felt healthy. In general, 91% of all respondents considered early preventive examinations to be useful and 66% had already taken part in other preventive examinations.
conclusionsThe low participation rate of about 50% in sSCS and the decreasing concern about skin cancer suggest that further education of the general population about the relevance of skin cancer with a focus on risk groups is necessary.
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.