ArticleJAMA health forum2026
Health Equity After a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.
Article in JAMA health forum, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death globally. Early identification of precancerous lesions and early-stage cancers can substantially reduce CRC incidence and improve survival. Hong Kong launched an organized colorectal cancer screening program (CRCSP) for the population in 2016. Objective: To assess the association of the CRCSP with the health equity of cancer screening participation among different socioeconomic groups over a 9-year period. Design, Setting, and Participants: Individual-level data from adults aged 50 to 75 years were analyzed from 3 repeated territory-wide population surveys in Hong Kong, China, between December 2014 to January 2022 to track trends in fecal test and colonoscopy participation. Disparities in screening uptake by socioeconomic status and income were assessed by concentration curves and indices. Survey-weighted generalized logistic regression models were used to assess the association between screening participation and socioeconomic factors. Data were analyzed from January 2025 to March 2026. Main Outcomes and Measures: Colorectal cancer screening utilization, specifically having ever undergone (1) a fecal test without symptoms and (2) a colonoscopy without symptoms. Results: This study analyzed 14 602 adults aged 50 to 75 years (mean [SD] age, 60.62 [7.03] years; 7716 female individuals [52.84%]). Participation in fecal testing increased from 19.88% (95% CI, 18.70-21.05) from 2014 to 2015 to 27.15% (95% CI, 26.12%-28.18%) from 2020 to 2022, and colonoscopy uptake rose from 17.65% (95% CI, 16.53%-18.77%) to 27.28% (95% CI, 26.24%-28.31%). Socioeconomic disparities narrowed after the CRCSP, with the concentration indices declining (fecal test participation, 0.11 from 2014-2015 to 0.02 from 2020-2022). Similar improvements were found for colonoscopy screening and across income groups. Screening participation was significantly associated with older age, higher education level, marital status, private housing, income, and socioeconomic status. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, following the implementation of an organized population screening program, colorectal cancer screening participation increased and socioeconomic disparities narrowed over time. Overall uptake in Hong Kong remains low, and some disparities persist in younger age groups (age 50-59 years), single households, individuals with a primary and secondary school education, lower-income groups, and public housing residents. Efforts to increase participation are needed in certain groups to ensure health equity.
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.