IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v101y2011i3p269-276.html
   My bibliography  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

Author

Listed:
  • Walsh, Brendan
  • Silles, Mary
  • O'Neill, Ciarán

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Walsh, Brendan & Silles, Mary & O'Neill, Ciarán, 2011. "The importance of socio-economic variables in cancer screening participation: A comparison between population-based and opportunistic screening in the EU-15," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 269-276, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:101:y:2011:i:3:p:269-276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016885101100025X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Burns, Richeal & Walsh, Brendan & O’Neill, Stephen & O’Neill, Ciaran, 2012. "An examination of variations in the uptake of prostate cancer screening within and between the countries of the EU-27," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 268-276.
    2. Bussière, Clémence & Le Vaillant, Marc & Pelletier-Fleury, Nathalie, 2015. "Screening for cervical cancer: What are the determinants among adults with disabilities living in institutions? Findings from a National Survey in France," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(6), pages 794-801.
    3. repec:spr:ijphth:v:63:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s00038-017-1045-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:eee:hepoli:v:121:y:2017:i:10:p:1072-1078 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Missinne, Sarah & Bracke, Piet, 2015. "A cross-national comparative study on the influence of individual life course factors on mammography screening," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(6), pages 709-719.
    6. Carney, Patricia & O'Neill, Stephen & O'Neill, Ciaran, 2013. "Determinants of breast cancer screening uptake in women, evidence from the British Household Panel Survey," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 108-114.
    7. repec:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0288-4 is not listed on IDEAS

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. 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 (). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.