Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36542644›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Long-term benefits for lower socioeconomic groups by improving bowel screening participation in South Australia: A modelling study.

Anita Lal, Lan Gao, Elise Tan, Nikki McCaffrey, David Roder, Elizabeth Buckley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Anita LalDeakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6921-6617
Lan GaoDeakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Elise TanDeakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Nikki McCaffreyDeakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
David RoderCancer Epidemiology and Population Health Research Group, Allied Health and Human Performance Academic Unit, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6442-4409
Elizabeth BuckleyFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8980-1194

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe gap in bowel cancer screening participation rates between the lowest socioeconomic position (SEP) groups and the highest in Australia is widening. This study estimates the long-term health impacts and healthcare costs at current colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation rates by SEP in South Australia (SA).

methodsA Markov microsimulation model for each socioeconomic quintile in SA estimated health outcomes over the lifetime of a population aged 50-74 years (total n = 513,000). The model simulated the development of CRC, considering participation rates in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program and estimated numbers of cases of CRC, CRC deaths, adenomas detected, mean costs of screening and treatment, and quality adjusted life years. Screened status, stage of diagnosis and survival were obtained for patients diagnosed with CRC in 2006-2013 using data linked to the SA Cancer Registry.

resultsWe predict 10915 cases of CRC (95%CI: 8017─13812) in the lowest quintile (Q1), 17% more than the highest quintile (Q5) and 3265 CRC deaths (95%CI: 2120─4410) in Q1, 24% more than Q5. Average costs per person, were 29% higher in Q1 at $11997 ($8754─$15240) compared to Q5 $9281 ($6555─$12007). When substituting Q1 screening and diagnostic testing rates with Q5's, 17% more colonoscopies occur and adenomas and cancers detected increase by 102% in Q1.

conclusionInequalities were evident in CRC cases and deaths, as well as adenomas and cancers that could be detected earlier. Implementing programs to increase screening uptake and follow-up tests for lower socioeconomic groups is critical to improve the health of these priority population groups.

Indexed as

AdenomaColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansIntestinesMass ScreeningSocioeconomic FactorsSouth Australia

Identifiers

PMID36542644
PMCPMC9770333

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.