ArticleBMC public health2026
Disparity in cancer literacy by socioeconomic status.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer literacy is a crucial component of cancer prevention, and disparities in cancer burden are observed based on socioeconomic status (SES). Evidence on the relationship between SES and cancer literacy among Chinese population is limited. This study aims to evaluate the association between SES disparities and cancer literacy.
methodsThis multicenter cross-sectional survey included 12 sites in China, employing a multistage proportional stratified cluster random sampling approach. Cancer literacy and sociodemographic information were collected through face-to-face interviews with participants aged 15 to 69 years. Cancer literacy was assessed using a validated questionnaire, with total scores ranging from 0 to 68; a score of 55 or higher indicated adequate cancer literacy. SES was defined by integrating household income, education, and occupation, with levels (low, medium, and high) determined through latent class analysis. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to examine the association between SES and cancer literacy.
resultsAmong 4,784 participants, 865 (18.08%) were identified as having adequate cancer literacy. The percentage of literate participants differed across SES groups, with 9.54% in the low SES, 14.11% in the medium SES, and 39.27% in the high SES. Compared to participants in the low SES group, the odds ratio (OR) for adequate cancer literacy was 4.74 (95% CI: 3.66–6.14) in the high SES group, and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.11–1.72) in the medium SES group. Subgroup analyses revealed that younger individuals, females, and urban residents with high SES exhibited significantly higher cancer literacy. Similar results were observed across five specific dimensions of cancer literacy.
conclusionsSES is a significant determinant of cancer literacy. Improving cancer literacy may enhance cancer prevention by promoting informed screening participation, earlier help-seeking, and healthier preventive behaviors, and should therefore be incorporated as a key component of cancer prevention strategies aimed at reducing SES-related disparities.
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.