Literature DB >> 28073892

Socioeconomic and ethnic inequities within organised colorectal cancer screening programmes worldwide.

C M de Klerk1, S Gupta2, E Dekker1, M L Essink-Bot3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes can reduce CRC mortality. However, the implementation of a screening programme may create or exacerbate socioeconomic and ethnic health inequities if participation varies by subgroup. We determined which organised programmes characterise participation inequities by socioeconomic and ethnic subgroups, and assessed the variation in subgroup participation among programmes collecting group-specific data.
DESIGN: Employing a literature review and survey among leaders of national or regional screening programmes, this study identified published and unpublished data on participation by socioeconomic status and ethnicity. We assessed programmes offering faecal occult blood tests (FOBT) for screening. Primary outcome was screening participation rate.
RESULTS: Across 24 organised FOBT-screening programmes meeting the inclusion criteria, participation rates ranged from 21% to 73%. Most programmes (13/24, 54%) did not collect data on participation by socioeconomic status and ethnicity. Among the 11 programmes with data on participation by socioeconomic status, 90% (28/31 publications) reported lower participation among lower socioeconomic groups. Differences across socioeconomic gradients were moderate (66% vs 71%) to severe (35% vs 61%). Only six programmes reported participation results by ethnicity. Ethnic differences were moderate, though only limited data were available for evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: Across organised CRC screening programmes worldwide, variation in participation by socioeconomic status and ethnicity is often not assessed. However, when measured, marked disparities in participation by socioeconomic status have been observed. Limited data were available to assess inequities by ethnicity. To avoid exacerbating health inequities, screening programmes should systematically monitor participation by socioeconomic status and ethnicity, and investigate and address determinants of low participation. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CANCER PREVENTION; COLORECTAL CANCER; COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28073892     DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-313311

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  17 in total

1.  Testing e-mail content to encourage physicians to access an audit and feedback tool: a factorial randomized experiment.

Authors:  G Vaisson; H O Witteman; S Chipenda-Dansokho; M Saragosa; Z Bouck; C A Bravo; L Desveaux; D Llovet; J Presseau; M Taljaard; S Umar; J M Grimshaw; J Tinmouth; N M Ivers
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer incidence in Canada: trends over two decades.

Authors:  Mohammad Hajizadeh; Marie Charles; Grace M Johnston; Robin Urquhart
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 2.506

3.  Postoperative Outcomes of Screen-Detected vs Non-Screen-Detected Colorectal Cancer in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Michael P M de Neree Tot Babberich; Nina C A Vermeer; Michel W J M Wouters; Wilhelmina M U van Grevenstein; Koen C M J Peeters; Evelien Dekker; Pieter J Tanis
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 14.766

4.  Determinants of (non-)attendance at the Dutch cancer screening programmes: A systematic review.

Authors:  Thomas Hg Bongaerts; Frederike L Büchner; Barend Jc Middelkoop; Onno R Guicherit; Mattijs E Numans
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  Disparities in the Participation Rate of Colorectal Cancer Screening by Fecal Occult Blood Test among People with Disabilities: A National Database Study in South Korea.

Authors:  Dong Wook Shin; Dongkyung Chang; Jin Hyung Jung; Kyungdo Han; So Young Kim; Kui Son Choi; Won Chul Lee; Jong Heon Park; Jong Hyock Park
Journal:  Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 4.679

6.  Impact of COVID-19 on colorectal cancer disparities and the way forward.

Authors:  Sophie Balzora; Rachel B Issaka; Adjoa Anyane-Yeboa; Darrell M Gray; Folasade P May
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2020-06-20       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Are there ethnic and religious variations in uptake of bowel cancer screening? A retrospective cohort study among 1.7 million people in Scotland.

Authors:  Christine Campbell; Anne Douglas; Linda Williams; Geneviève Cezard; David H Brewster; Duncan Buchanan; Kathryn Robb; Greig Stanners; David Weller; Robert Jc Steele; Markus Steiner; Raj Bhopal
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Novel Toilet Paper-Based Point-Of-Care Test for the Rapid Detection of Fecal Occult Blood: Instrument Validation Study.

Authors:  Hsin-Yao Wang; Ting-Wei Lin; Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; Wan-Ying Lin; Song-Bin Huang; Jason Chia-Hsun Hsieh; Hsieh Cheng Chen; Jang-Jih Lu; Min-Hsien Wu
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-08-07       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  Variation of colorectal, breast and prostate cancer screening activity in Switzerland: Influence of insurance, policy and guidelines.

Authors:  Agne Ulyte; Wenjia Wei; Holger Dressel; Oliver Gruebner; Viktor von Wyl; Caroline Bähler; Eva Blozik; Beat Brüngger; Matthias Schwenkglenks
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Recent advances in clinical practice: colorectal cancer chemoprevention in the average-risk population.

Authors:  Nicolas Chapelle; Myriam Martel; Esther Toes-Zoutendijk; Alan N Barkun; Marc Bardou
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 23.059

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.