IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The importance of socio-economic variables in cancer screening participation: A comparison between population-based and opportunistic screening in the EU-15

Listed author(s):
  • Walsh, Brendan
  • Silles, Mary
  • O'Neill, Ciarán

Objectives To investigate differences in participation with breast and cervical cancer screening related to individual socio-economic characteristics, across population-based versus opportunistic screening programmes.Methods Data from Eurobarometer 66.2 "Health in the European Union" 2006 on self-reported breast and cervical cancer screening participation in the preceding 12 months within the EU 15 was obtained The sample was restricted to those eligible for screening based on the screening age within each country. Observations for 2214 and 5025 individuals respectively for breast and cervical cancer screening were available. Data on marital status, self-reported health, socio-economic group and years of education were also available. Screening programmes were categorised as population-based or opportunistic and logistic regression analysis used to examine the relationship between participation, individual characteristics and programme type.Results Differences in participation related to socio-economic status were observed in opportunistic screening programmes for breast cancer (ORÂ =Â 0.63* and ORÂ =Â 0.51**) and cervical cancer (ORÂ =Â 0.75** and ORÂ =Â 0.64**). Differences related to socio-economic characteristics were not found with respect to participation in population-based programmes.Conclusions In opportunistic programmes, differences in participation across socio-economic groups are evident in respect of both breast and cervical cancer screening. These differences may have implications for treatment and outcomes across socio-economic groups. Such differences were not evident in population-based programmes.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Health Policy.

Volume (Year): 101 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 (August)
Pages: 269-276

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:101:y:2011:i:3:p:269-276
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:101:y:2011:i:3:p:269-276. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

or ()

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.