ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2026
Mailed faecal immunochemical test programmes and educational inequalities in colorectal cancer screening in Europe: a difference-in-differences analysis.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 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
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening has contributed to reducing CRC incidence and mortality in Europe. However, inequalities in screening persist, with lower participation among individuals with lower educational attainment. It remains unclear whether screening programmes can mitigate these inequalities. This study examined the impact of mailed faecal immunochemical test (FIT) programmes on screening participation and related educational inequalities.
methodsWe analysed repeated cross-sectional data from 202 976 respondents aged 50-74 in 24 European countries from the European Health Interview Survey (2014 and 2019), a nationally administered population-based survey. Outcomes were self-reported stool-based screening uptake (lifetime and past 2 years). Educational attainment was categorized into three levels (lower, middle, higher) based on ISCED-2011. We used a difference-in-differences design to compare changes in screening uptake between 2014 and 2019 in countries that implemented nationwide FIT programmes and countries that did not.
resultsIn countries that implemented FIT programmes, lifetime and past-2-year screening uptake increased by 28.3 (95% CI: 12.3-44.3) and 30.2 (95% CI: 13.8-46.6) percentage points (ppts), respectively, compared with countries without programmes. The increase was larger among individuals with middle than higher education, with an additional 8.9 (95% CI: 3.3-14.5) ppts for lifetime and 6.4 (95% CI: 1.5-11.2) ppts for past-2-year uptake, indicating a reduction in inequality between these groups. No reduction in inequality was observed between individuals with lower and higher education.
conclusionMailed FIT programmes increased stool-based screening uptake and reduced inequalities between individuals with middle and higher education. To further promote equity in CRC screening, future initiatives should prioritize individuals with lower educational attainment.
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.