ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Breast cancer screening coverage is severely reduced among women who reside in segregated areas: a cross-sectional investigation in Hungary.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study investigated disparities in breast cancer screening participation between living in residential segregations (SAs, segregated areas defined by clustering of low levels of income and education) and in non-segregated, complementary areas (CAs) of Hungary. Methods: In a nationwide cross-sectional study, data from 2019 were obtained from the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF). In accordance with the Hungarian recommendation, the target group was composed of women aged 45-65, and screening participation was evaluated as appropriate if the women participated in mammography within 2 years. Standardized participation ratios (sPRs) were calculated for each SA and CA. These ratios were adjusted for age and eligibility for exemption certificates. The calculations were done for each general medical practice (GMP) serving a population with at least one SA, as well as for the whole country. The level of inequality was quantified by the relative standardized participation ratio (rsPR) by comparing sPR in the segregated versus non-segregated areas. Results: The study identified 11,581 observed breast cancer screening cases in SAs, compared with 417,891 in CAs, with target populations of 45,185 in SAs and 984,198 in CAs. In general, crude participation rates were significantly lower in SAs (25.6%) than in CAs (42.5%), with a rsPR of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.61-0.63). The impact of segregation on national screening coverage was negligible (population attributable risk: -1.2%). The GMP-level rsPR varied widely with a median of 0.653 and interquartile range (IQR) of 0.464-0.867. Notably, 15.6% of the GMPs had significantly reduced rsPR. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that breast cancer screening coverage is considerably lower among women living in SAs than in those living in non-segregated areas. GMPs showed substantial variability with respect to segregation related inequality. There was a remarkable proportion of GMPs without local inequality. The impact of segregation on national breast cancer screening participation was negligible. According to our observations, the segregation-specific indicators should be included in screening monitoring, and its results should be feedback to local authorities and stakeholders in order to identify and address local problems of screening organization to reduce inequalities.
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.