ArticleNPJ breast cancer2024
Contextual and individual inequalities in breast cancer screening participation and outcomes in Turin (North-West Italy).
Article in NPJ breast cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between socioeconomic position and transitions to multimorbidity involving major chronic diseases in Northwest Italy.npj aging · 2026Article
- Breast cancer in immigrant women in Europe and Italy: epidemiology, disparities, and pathways to equity.Oncology reviews · 2026Review
- Investigation into Knowledge and Adherence To Vaccination and Screening Campaigns among Immigrants in the Marche Region, Central Italy.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2025Article
- Unmet Needs Mediate the Impact of Fear of Cancer Recurrence on Screening Participation Among Cancer Survivors: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The impact of individual and contextual socioeconomic factors on colorectal cancer screening adherence in Turin, Italy: a multilevel analysis.BMC public health · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer incidence and screening participation exhibit an unequal distribution in the population. This study aims to investigate the impact of socioeconomic position (SEP) on three breast screening indicators (participation, recall, and cancer detection rates) among women aged 50-69 in the city of Turin between 2010 and 2019. The study also aims to determine whether contextual factors (deprivation index) or individual factors (educational level) have a greater influence. The data used in this study are sourced from the Turin Breast Screening Program (TBSP) and the Turin Longitudinal Study (TLS). To test the hypothesis and account for the hierarchical structure of the data, multilevel models were used. Both contextual and individual SEP were found to be associated with screening participation. Participation increased with higher levels of deprivation (odds ratio for most deprived: 1.13; 95% CI 1.11-1.16) and decreased with higher educational levels (OR for low educated: 1.37; 95% CI 1.34-1.40). Contextual SEP did not show any association with recall or cancer detection rates, but individual SEP had an impact. Women with lower educational levels had a statistically significant 19% lower odds of being recalled and a statistically significant 20% lower odds of being diagnosed with cancer. Additionally, immigrant women were less likely to participate in screening, be recalled, or receive a cancer diagnosis. Educational level consistently influenced the analyzed screening indicators, while contextual deprivation appeared to have less importance. It is likely that women living in less deprived areas and with higher education have greater access to opportunistic screening.
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.