ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2023
Spatial variability in socio-demographic factors affecting participation in the Australian national bowel cancer screening program.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2026Pooled it
- Long-Term Health and Economic Impacts of COVID-19 Disruptions on Bowel Cancer Inequalities in Victoria, Australia: A Modelling Study.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this paper is to analyse the socio-demographic and spatial patterns associated with bowel cancer screening in Australia. Despite the importance of screening in reducing mortality via early intervention, it remains the case that overall screening rates are uneven between different socio-demographic groups and geographic regions. Notwithstanding this, there is limited knowledge in Australia regarding the interplay between socio-demographics and geography in relation to bowel cancer screening. Thus, this paper explores the socio-demographic and spatial patterns of screening participation across Australian regions to better inform public health policy and programs. Study design: This is a nationwide ecological study based on aggregate spatial data. Methods: An ecological study is conducted using bowel cancer screening rates and selected socio-demographic data measured at the Statistical Area 3 level. Geographically weighted regression software is used to conduct global and spatial regression analysis. Results: The global regression results show that higher rates of screening participation were associated with employment/education disengagement and volunteering while in contrast, lower rates of participation were associated with higher rates of indigenous populations, people with chronic health conditions, and people with poor English skills. Considering the spatial analysis, the analysis shows that once the spatial non-stationarity in the data is considered the influence of the variables shown to be significant in the global model, has significant spatial variability. Conclusion: From a public health perspective, addressing shortfalls in bowel cancer screening participation is an important priority. In order to understand differences in participation rates it is important to consider both socio-demographic factors as well as the geographic or spatial distribution of these factors.
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.