ArticlePloS one2022
Socioeconomic differences in participation and diagnostic yield within the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening programme with faecal immunochemical testing.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effective strategies for Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) programs to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake among populations with limited access to the healthcare system: a rapid review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Adherence to Fecal Occult Blood Tests in Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Pooled it
- Trial
- Association Between Socioeconomic Position and Diagnosis, Treatment and Survival of Patients With Stage I-III Rectal Cancer in the Netherlands.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Harnessing conversational generative artificial intelligence and natural language processing to address the colorectal cancer screening adherence gap: the Azores endeavour.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Concordance of Cancer Screening Attendance Among Spouse Couples: A Cross-Sectional Survey of the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project.Psycho-oncology · 2025Article
- Analysing Inequalities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Using an Individual Socioeconomic Status Index.Cancers · 2024Article
- Oncologic outcomes of screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 colorectal cancers.Endoscopy · 2024Article
- Colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical testing or primary colonoscopy: inequities in diagnostic yield.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Perceived economic pressure and colorectal cancer-related perceptions among U.S. males (aged 45-75).Cancer causes & control : CCC · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCRC mortality rates are higher for individuals with a lower socioeconomic status (SES). Screening could influence health inequalities. We therefore aimed to investigate SES differences in participation and diagnostic yield of FIT screening.
methodsAll invitees in 2014 and 2015 in the Dutch national CRC screening programme were included in the analyses. We used area SES as a measure for SES and divided invitees into quintiles, with Quintile 1 being the highest SES. Logistic regression analysis was used to compare the participation rate, positivity rate, colonoscopy uptake, positive predictive value (PPV) and detection rate across the SES groups.
resultsParticipation to FIT screening was significantly lower for Quintile 5 (67.0%) compared to the other Quintiles (73.0% to 75.1%; adjusted OR quintile 5 versus quintile 1: 0.73, 95%CI: 0.72-0.74), as well as colonoscopy uptake after a positive FIT (adjusted OR 0.73, 95%CI: 0.69-0.77). The detection rate per FIT participant for advanced neoplasia gradually increased from 3.3% in Quintile 1 to 4.0% in Quintile 5 (adjusted OR 1.20%, 95%CI 1.16-1.24). As a result of lower participation, the yield per invitee was similar for Quintile 5 (2.04%) and Quintile 1 (2.00%), both being lower than Quintiles 2 to 4 (2.20%-2.28%).
conclusionsScreening has the potential to reduce health inequalities in CRC mortality, because of a higher detection in participants with a lower SES. However, in the Dutch screening programme, this is currently offset by the lower participation in this group.
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.