ArticlePreventive medicine reports2025
Socioeconomic position and breast cancer screening use in Chile: A population-based study.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Network-Based Asynchronous Research Training in Breast Imaging: A Multinational Pre-Post Evaluation for Cancer Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Modeling breast cancer screening hesitancy among Chinese women: integrating the Knowledge-Attitude-Practice, health belief, and 5 C frameworks.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Regional Inequities in Mammography Access and Utilization in Latin America: Ethnic, Rural, and Structural Barriers Identified Through a Narrative Review.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Improving preventive screening efficiency: A population-based model of age-specific mammographic density for breast Cancer detection in Saudi Arabia.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer screening is crucial for the early detection of the disease. Although several studies have examined the relationship between socioeconomic factors and mammography use, the impact of socioeconomic position (SEP) in countries undergoing demographic and epidemiological transitions-marked by a rising cancer incidence-and passive breast cancer screening programs in the search of the target population remains understudied. Objective: To analyze the relationship between SEP in the use of breast cancer screening in Chile during 2022. Methods: Data from the 2022 National Socioeconomic Characterization Survey was utilized for this study. The sample consisted of women aged 50-69 who were asked about their mammography screening history within the past three years. The relationship between SEP and breast cancer screening was analyzed using multilevel logit-binomial regression models. Results: The study included 26,337 women, of whom 66.9 % reported having undergone mammography in the past three years. Three SEP indicators were associated with non-use of mammography. These factors were primary education level or lower (Prevalence ratio = 1.20; 95 % CI 1.08-1.33. Ref: tertiary level), belonging to the low-income quintiles (eg: Quintile I (Prevalence ratio = 1.49; 95 % CI 1.30-1.69) and II (Prevalence ratio = 1.41; 95 % CI 1.24-1.60). Ref: quintile V) and being unemployed (Prevalence ratio = 1.34; 95 % CI 1.18-1.51) or working in service and commerce (Prevalence ratio = 1.21; 95 % CI 1.06-1.39) (Ref: Managers and professionals). Conclusions: Low SEP was significantly associated with the non-use of mammography. To improve mammography screening rates, it is essential to adopt strategies that incorporate both equity and territorial considerations.
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.