ArticleInternational journal of cancer2022
Characteristics of nonparticipants in a randomised colorectal cancer screening trial comparing sigmoidoscopy and faecal immunochemical testing.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Stool and blood biomarkers for colorectal cancer management: an update on screening and disease monitoring.Molecular cancer · 2024Review
- Article
- Effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening integrating non-genetic and genetic risk: a prospective study based on UK Biobank data.Cancer biology & medicine · 2024Article
- Utilization of colorectal cancer screening tests across European countries: a cross-sectional analysis of the European health interview survey 2018-2020.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Breast cancer-specific survival among immigrants and non-immigrants invited to BreastScreen Norway.Journal of migration and health · 2024Article
- Colonoscopy surveillance in Lynch syndrome is burdensome and frequently delayed.Familial cancer · 2023Article
- Lower participation among immigrants in colorectal cancer screening in Norway.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Polish immigrants' access to colorectal cancer screening in Norway - a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Characteristics of nonparticipants in a randomised colorectal cancer screening trial comparing sigmoidoscopy and faecal immunochemical testing.International journal of cancer · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public health systems should guarantee universal access to health care services, including cancer screening. We assessed whether certain population subgroups were underrepresented among participants in colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy and faecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Between 2012 and 2019, about 140 000 individuals aged 50 to 74 years were randomly invited to once-only sigmoidoscopy or first round of FIT screening. Our study included 46 919 individuals invited to sigmoidoscopy and 70 019 to FIT between 2012 and 2017. We used logistic regression models to evaluate if demographic and socioeconomic factors and use of certain drugs were associated with participation. Twenty-four thousand one hundred and fifty-nine (51.5%) individuals attended sigmoidoscopy and 40 931 (58.5%) FIT screening. Male gender, young age, low education and income, being retired or unemployed, living alone, being an immigrant, long driving time to screening centre, and use of antidiabetic and psychotropic drugs were associated with low participation in both screening groups. Many of these factors also predicted low acceptance of colonoscopy after positive FIT. While male gender, young age and living alone were more strongly associated with nonparticipation in FIT than sigmoidoscopy, low education and income, being retired or immigrant and long driving time were more strongly associated with nonparticipation in sigmoidoscopy than FIT. In conclusion, participation was lower in sigmoidoscopy than FIT. Predictors of nonparticipation were similar between arms. However, low socioeconomic status, being an immigrant and long driving time affected participation more in sigmoidoscopy screening, suggesting that FIT may guarantee more equal access to screening services than sigmoidoscopy.
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.