ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2026
The influence of rural residency on the uptake of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers in Scotland.
Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere has been little examination of rural-urban residency and cancer screening. We investigated rural-urban variations in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening uptake across Scotland.
methodsUsing aggregate data and cross-sectional analyses, we calculated uptake and detection rates (breast and bowel screening). We modelled uptake by urban and rural residency, age group, sex (bowel screening only), year, health board, and deprivation using multivariable logistic regression with appropriate interaction terms.
resultsCervical screening uptake was higher in rural than urban areas (under 50s: 75.9% vs. 69.1%; 50+: 77.5% vs. 75.3%). Mammography uptake was: 77.0% in rural; 71.0% in urban areas. Bowel screening uptake was: 56.6% in urban; 62.5% in rural areas. In multivariable models, two-way interaction effects between residency and deprivation, and between residency and health board, were statistically significant (P < .05). Rural residency did not confer universally higher uptake. Breast and bowel cancer detection were similar in both areas.
conclusionsThe relationship between residence and cancer screening uptake varied across Scotland. Uptake patterns were complex and not consistent across all rural areas, likely reflecting Scotland's topography and characteristics of the screening eligible. Efforts to improve screening uptake would likely benefit from local rather than national public health policies.
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.