4.7 Article

Inequalities in colorectal cancer screening participation in the first round of the national screening programme in England

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 101, 期 -, 页码 S60-S63

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605392

关键词

colorectal cancer screening; socio-economic status; ethnicity; self-reported health; health inequality

类别

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Introduction of organised, population-based, colorectal cancer screening in the United Kingdom using the faecal occult blood test (FOBT) has the potential to reduce overall colorectal cancer mortality. However, socio-economic variation in screening participation could exacerbate existing inequalities in mortality. METHODS: This study examined FOBT uptake rates in London, England in relation to area-level socio-economic deprivation over the first 30 months of the programme during which 401 197 individuals were sent an FOBT kit. Uptake was defined as return of a completed test kit within 3 months. Area-level deprivation in each postcode sector was indexed with the Townsend Material Deprivation Index. Analyses controlled for area-level household mobility, ethnic diversity and poor health, each of which was associated with lower return rates. RESULTS: The results showed a strong socio-economic gradient in FOBT uptake, which declined from 49% in the least deprived quintile of postcodes to 38% in the middle quintile and 32% in the most deprived quintile. Variation in socio-economic deprivation between sectors accounted for 62% of the variance in return rates, with little attenuation as a result of controlling for ethnic diversity, household mobility or health status. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the need to understand the causes of socio-economic gradients in screening participation and address barriers that could otherwise increase disparities in colorectal cancer survival. British Journal of Cancer (2009) 101, S60-S63. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605392 www.bjcancer.com (C) 2009 Cancer Research UK

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据