Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37653363›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

Breast cancer screening and its associating factors among hungarian women aged 45-65: a cross-sectional study based on the European health interview surveys from 2009 to 2019.

Jenifer Pataki, Viktor Dombrádi, Attila Sárváry, Gergő József Szőllősi

Open access · goldAbstract 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jenifer PatakiFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
Viktor DombrádiHealth Services Management Training Centre, Faculty of Health and Public Administration, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Attila SárváryDepartment of Integrative Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
Gergő József SzőllősiCoordination Center for Research in Social Sciences, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary. szollosi.gergo@sph.unideb.hu.
University of Debrecen · HUSemmelweis University · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2020, globally 685,000 people died, and 2.3 million women were diagnosed with breast cancer. The main cause of cancer deaths among women is breast cancer, which account for 15.5% of all cancer deaths. Most of these could have been avoided with timely diagnosis. The aim of our study was to determine the proportion of breast screening participation in Hungary, and to identify possible factors that may influence breast screening attendance.

methodsOur data were gathered from the cross-sectional European Health Interview Surveys conducted in Hungary in 2009, 2014, and 2019. In terms of categorical characteristics, Pearson's chi-square test was performed to evaluate the differences between people who have attended breast screening within two years and who have only attended more than two years ago. To determine the factors that may have an impact on the uptake of screening, generalized linear model with logit link function regarding binomial probability distribution was executed.

resultsThe responses of 2626 women between the age 45-65 were included in our study. In 2009 85% (n=741), in 2014 90% (n=851) and in 2019 87% (n=699) of the respondents claimed to have ever attended a breast screening in their life. In 2009 68% (n=594), in 2014 66% (n=630) and in 2019 64% (n=515) said that they have taken part in breast screening within two years (p=0.331). From 2014 to 2019 (AOR=0.72 [0.57-0.89]) the chance of attending breast screening was decreasing. We observed that both secondary (AOR=1.97 [1.60-2.44]) and tertiary educational level (AOR=2.23 [1.67-3.00]), higher perceived income (AOR=1.54 [1.25-1.90]), and more frequent meeting with the doctor (AOR=1.77 [1.39-2.27]) and with the specialist (AOR=1.88 [1.54-2.28]) appeared as protective factors of breast screening attendance.

conclusionsOur results show that the lifetime prevalence of breast screening participation is high, however the recommended biennial rate is relatively low. To increase the participation rate, various initiatives would be needed, especially for women in identified risk groups, which are lower educational level, lower perceived income, and less frequent meeting with the doctor and with the specialist.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansHungaryMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesBreast cancerEHISEpidemiologyMammographyScreening

Identifiers

PMID37653363
PMCPMC10472565
OpenAlexW4386327087

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.