Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36949447›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

Inequalities in colorectal cancer screening uptake in Wales: an examination of the impact of the temporary suspension of the screening programme during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Diana Bright, Sharon Hillier, Jiao Song, Dyfed W Huws, Giles Greene, Karen Hodgson, Ashley Akbari, Rowena Griffiths, Alisha R Davies, Ardiana Gjini

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Geographical Disparities in Faecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation and Positivity Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

10 authors.

Diana BrightResearch and Evaluation Division, Knowledge and Research Directorate, Public Health Data, Public Health Wales, Floor 5, Number 2 Capital Quarter, Tyndall Street, Cardiff, CF10 4BZ, UK. Diana.Bright@wales.nhs.uk.
Sharon HillierHealth Protection and Screening Services Directorate. Public Health Wales, Cardiff, Wales.
Jiao SongCommunicable Disease Surveillance Centre. Public Health Wales, Cardiff, Wales.
Dyfed W HuwsResearch and Evaluation Division, Knowledge and Research Directorate, Public Health Data, Public Health Wales, Floor 5, Number 2 Capital Quarter, Tyndall Street, Cardiff, CF10 4BZ, UK.
Giles GreeneResearch and Evaluation Division, Knowledge and Research Directorate, Public Health Data, Public Health Wales, Floor 5, Number 2 Capital Quarter, Tyndall Street, Cardiff, CF10 4BZ, UK.
Karen HodgsonResearch and Evaluation Division, Knowledge and Research Directorate, Public Health Data, Public Health Wales, Floor 5, Number 2 Capital Quarter, Tyndall Street, Cardiff, CF10 4BZ, UK.
Ashley AkbariPopulation Data Science, Faculty of Medicine, Health & Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales.
Rowena GriffithsPopulation Data Science, Faculty of Medicine, Health & Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales.
Alisha R DaviesResearch and Evaluation Division, Knowledge and Research Directorate, Public Health Data, Public Health Wales, Floor 5, Number 2 Capital Quarter, Tyndall Street, Cardiff, CF10 4BZ, UK.
Ardiana GjiniHealth Protection and Screening Services Directorate. Public Health Wales, Cardiff, Wales.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V028367/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResponse to the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the temporary disruption of cancer screening in the UK, and strong public messaging to stay safe and to protect NHS capacity. Following reintroduction in services, we explored the impact on inequalities in uptake of the Bowel Screening Wales (BSW) programme to identify groups who may benefit from tailored interventions.

methodsRecords within the BSW were linked to electronic health records (EHR) and administrative data within the Secured Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. Ethnic group was obtained from a linked data method available within SAIL. We examined uptake for the first 3 months of invitations (August to October) following the reintroduction of BSW programme in 2020, compared to the same period in the preceding 3 years. Uptake was measured across a 6 month follow-up period. Logistic models were conducted to analyse variations in uptake by sex, age group, income deprivation quintile, urban/rural location, ethnic group, and clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) status in each period; and to compare uptake within sociodemographic groups between different periods.

resultsUptake during August to October 2020 (period 2020/21; 60.4%) declined compared to the same period in 2019/20 (62.7%) but remained above the 60% Welsh standard. Variation by sex, age, income deprivation, and ethnic groups was observed in all periods studied. Compared to the pre-pandemic period in 2019/20, uptake declined for most demographic groups, except for older individuals (70-74 years) and those in the most income deprived group. Uptake continues to be lower in males, younger individuals, people living in the most income deprived areas and those of Asian and unknown ethnic backgrounds.

conclusionOur findings are encouraging with overall uptake achieving the 60% Welsh standard during the first three months after the programme restarted in 2020 despite the disruption. Inequalities did not worsen after the programme resumed activities but variations in CRC screening in Wales associated with sex, age, deprivation and ethnic group remain. This needs to be considered in targeting strategies to improve uptake and informed choice in CRC screening to avoid exacerbating disparities in CRC outcomes as screening services recover from the pandemic.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsCOVID-19Early Detection of CancerHumansMalePandemicsSocioeconomic FactorsWalesBowelcancer screeningColorectal cancerCOVID-19EthnicityInequalities

Identifiers

PMID36949447
PMCPMC10031708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read91
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.