Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39148101›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Adherence to national guidelines for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings in Japanese workplaces: a survey-based classification of enterprises' practices into "overscreening," "underscreening," and "guideline-adherence screening".

Masanari Minamitani, Masayuki Tatemichi, Tomoya Mukai, Atsuto Katano, Shingo Ohira, Keiichi Nakagawa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Human papillomavirus infection and screening strategies.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025
    Review
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.

Masanari MinamitaniDepartment of Comprehensive Radiation Oncology, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan. minamitani-tky@umin.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-8851-5695
Masayuki TatemichiDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Tokai University School of Medicine, 143 Shimokasuya, Isehara City, Kanagawa, 259-1193, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5051-8591
Tomoya MukaiDepartment of Psychology, Fukuyama University, 985-1, Sanzo, Higashimura-Machi, Fukuyama-City, Hiroshima, 729-0292, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4237-6781
Atsuto KatanoDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-4393-1828
Shingo OhiraDepartment of Comprehensive Radiation Oncology, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-6170-1471
Keiichi NakagawaDepartment of Comprehensive Radiation Oncology, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5874-8703

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorkplace cancer screening programs are determined as part of an employee's benefits package and health checkups are perceived positively. However, the current status of workplace cancer screening programs in Japan is unavailable. This study aimed to assess the adherence to national guidelines for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings in the workplace among Japanese enterprises and identify factors associated with excessive or inadequate screenings.

methodsA cross-sectional study design was employed. Data were obtained from a survey conducted by the "Corporate Action to Promote Cancer Control" between November and December 2022 among registered partner enterprises in Japan. The survey included questions on background characteristics, cancer screening practices, and intervention approaches. The analysis included 432 enterprises that provided complete responses regarding colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings.

resultsThe guideline-adherence rates for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings in the workplace were 12.7%, 3.0%, and 8.8%, respectively. Enterprises had lower adherence to screening guidelines than local governments. Colorectal (70.8%) and breast (67.1%) cancer screenings were predominantly categorized as "overscreening" and cervical (60.6%) cancer screening, as "underscreening." Factors such as enterprise scale, health insurance associations, and the number of interventional approaches were significantly associated with increased "overscreening" (101-1000: β = 0.13, p = 0.01; ≥ 1000: β = 0.17, p < 0.01; health insurance association: β = 0.23, p < 0.01; and approaches: β = 0.42, p < 0.01) and reduced "underscreening" (101-1000: β = -0.13, p = 0.01; ≥ 1000: β = -0.17, p < 0.01; health insurance association: β = -0.18, p < 0.01; and approaches: β = -0.48, p < 0.01).

conclusionAdherence to national guidelines for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings in the workplace was suboptimal among Japanese enterprises. Therefore, appropriate cancer screening measures and interventions to ensure guideline adherence and optimization of screening benefits while minimizing potential harms should be expeditiously implemented.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerGuideline AdherenceUterine Cervical NeoplasmsWorkplaceAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEast Asian PeopleFemaleHumansJapanMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesCancer screeningGuideline adherenceLocal governmentOverscreeningUnderscreeningWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID39148101
PMCPMC11325713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.