Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34848507›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2021

Factors associated with attendance at screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rebecca Mottram, Wendy Lynn Knerr, Daniel Gallacher, Hannah Fraser, Lena Al-Khudairy, Abimbola Ayorinde, Sian Williamson, Chidozie Nduka, Olalekan A Uthman, Samantha Johnson and 4 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. The Impact of Morbidity and Disability on Attendance at Organized Breast Cancer-Screening Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

14 authors.

Rebecca MottramDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Wendy Lynn KnerrDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6475-9417
Daniel GallacherDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0506-9384
Hannah FraserDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Lena Al-KhudairyDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Abimbola AyorindeDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4915-5092
Sian WilliamsonDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Chidozie NdukaDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Olalekan A UthmanDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8567-3081
Samantha JohnsonUniversity of Warwick Library, University of Warwick, Coventry, West Midlands, UK.
Alexander TsertsvadzeSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Christopher StintonDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Sian Taylor-PhillipsDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1841-4346
Aileen ClarkeDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK aileen.clarke@warwick.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAttendance at population-based breast cancer (mammographic) screening varies. This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis assesses all identified patient-level factors associated with routine population breast screening attendance.

designCINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, OVID, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched for studies of any design, published January 1987-June 2019, and reporting attendance in relation to at least one patient-level factor. DATA SYNTHESIS: Independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction and quality appraisal. OR and 95% CIs were calculated for attendance for each factor and random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken where possible.

resultsOf 19 776 studies, 335 were assessed at full text and 66 studies (n=22 150 922) were included. Risk of bias was generally low. In meta-analysis, increased attendance was associated with higher socioeconomic status (SES) (n=11 studies; OR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.75); higher income (n=5 studies; OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.68 to 2.29); home ownership (n=3 studies; OR 2.16, 95% CI: 2.08 to 2.23); being non-immigrant (n=7 studies; OR 2.23, 95% CI: 2.00 to 2.48); being married/cohabiting (n=7 studies; OR 1.86, 95% CI: 1.58 to 2.19) and medium (vs low) level of education (n=6 studies; OR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.41). Women with previous false-positive results were less likely to reattend (n=6 studies; OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.88). There were no differences by age group or by rural versus urban residence.

conclusionsAttendance was lower in women with lower SES, those who were immigrants, non-homeowners and those with previous false-positive results. Variations in service delivery, screening programmes and study populations may influence findings. Our findings are of univariable associations. Underlying causes of lower uptake such as practical, physical, psychological or financial barriers should be investigated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016051597.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsText MessagingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass Screeningbreast imagingbreast tumoursdiagnostic radiologypublic health

Identifiers

PMID34848507
PMCPMC8634222

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.