Impact on immigrant screening adherence with introduction of a population‐based colon screening program in Ontario, Canada
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: The literature suggests that differential colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence exists between Canada’s immigrant and nonimmigrant populations. This study explores the impact of Ontario’s population screening program, ColonCancerCheck, on CRC screening uptake in immigrant and nonimmigrant population groups. Methods: Data from 2005, 2007‐2008, and 2011‐2012 was obtained from the Canadian Community Health Survey, to represent the intervention periods (the time periods before, during, and after implementation of the ColonCancerCheck intervention). Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the effect of immigration status on the risk of nonadherence to guideline‐recommended CRC screening, and an interaction analysis was performed to determine whether the screening differential between immigrant and nonimmigrant populations changed upon introduction of the ColonCancerCheck program. Results: Recent and long‐term immigrants were both at increased risk of CRC screening nonadherence compared to the Canadian‐born population (OR 3.73 (CI 2.25‐6.18) and OR 1.24 (CI 1.13‐1.36), respectively). While not statistically significant, there was an attenuation of the risk of nonadherence to screening for recent immigrants compared with Canadian‐born individuals after the implementation of the ColonCancerCheck program. Conclusions: This study provides evidence of a screening differential between immigrants and nonimmigrants, and suggests that the implementation of the ColonCancerCheck screening program in Ontario may have increased colon screening uptake amongst recent immigrants. Further studies are needed to address the factors leading to inequities in immigrant CRC screening adherence.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Invitations may help in tackling disparities between different sociodemographic groups compared to ad hoc screening.
“Invitations may help in tackling the disparities between different sociodemographic groups (e.g., immigrants vs. general population) compared to ad hoc screening [67].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [67]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- [2]Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med. 1993; 328(19): 1365‐ 1371. 8474513
- [3]Tinmouth J, Vella ET, Baxter NN, et al. Colorectal cancer screening in average risk populations: evidence summary. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 2016: 2878149. 27597935 PMC5002289
- [4]Kiran T, Glazier RH, Moineddin R, Gu S, Wilton AS, Paszat L. The impact of a population‐based screening program on income‐ and immigration‐related disparities in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2017; 26(9): 1401‐ 1410. 28626067
- [5]Honein‐AbouHaidar GN, Baxter NN, Moineddin R, Urbach DR, Rabeneck L, Bierman AS. Trends and inequities in colorectal cancer screening participation in Ontario, Canada, 2005–2011. Cancer Epidemiol. 2013; 37(6): 946‐ 956. 23702337
- [6]Borkhoff CM, Saskin R, Rabeneck L, et al. Disparities in receipt of screening tests for cancer, diabetes and high cholesterol in Ontario, Canada: a population‐based study using area‐based methods. Can J Public Health Rev. 2013; 104(4): e284‐ 290. PMC6973949 24044467
- [11]Rabeneck L, Adams PC. Colorectal cancer screening: opportunistic or organized? Can J Gastroenterol. 2006; 20(4): 249‐ 250. 16649293 PMC2659898
- [13]Charters TJ, Strumpf EC, Sewitch MJ. Effectiveness of an organized colorectal cancer screening program on increasing adherence in asymptomatic average‐risk Canadians. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013; 13: 449. 24168208 PMC4231607
- [14]Shields M, Wilkins K. An update on mammography use in Canada. Health Rep. 2009; 20(3): 7‐ 19. 19813435
- [15]Schoueri‐Mychasiw N, McDonald PW. Factors associated with underscreening for cervical cancer among women in Canada. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013; 14(11): 6445‐ 6450. 24377548
- [16]Dunn SF, Lofters AK, Ginsburg OM, et al. Cervical and breast cancer screening after cares: a community program for immigrant and marginalized women. Am J Prev Med. 2017; 52(5): 589‐ 597. 28094134
- [17]McDonald JT, Kennedy S. Cervical cancer screening by immigrant and minority women in Canada. J Immigr Minor Health. 2007; 9(4): 323‐ 334. 17345152
- [24]Rauscher GH, Johnson TP, Cho YI, Walk JA. Accuracy of self‐reported cancer‐screening histories: a meta‐analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2008; 17(4): 748‐ 757. 18381468
- [25]Free Statistical Software. SAS University Edition [Internet]. https://www.sas.com/en_ca/software/university-edition.html. Accessed October 16, 2017.
- [26]Wiley: Applications of Regression Models in Epidemiology ‐ Erick Suárez, Cynthia M. Pérez, Roberto Rivera, et al [Internet]. http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1119212480.html. Accessed December 7, 2017.
- [27]Goel MS, Wee CC, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, Ngo‐Metzger Q, Phillips RS. Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer screening: the importance of foreign birth as a barrier to care. J Gen Intern Med. 2003; 18(12): 1028‐ 1035. 14687262 PMC1494963
- [28]Caplan LS, Lane DS, Grimson R. The use of cohort vs repeated cross‐sectional sample survey data in monitoring changing breast cancer screening practices. Prev Med. 1995; 24(6): 553‐ 556. 8610077
- [29]Southern DA, McLaren L, Hawe P, Knudtson ML, Ghali WA. Individual‐level and neighborhood‐level income measures: agreement and association with outcomes in a cardiac disease cohort. Med Care. 2005; 43(11): 1116‐ 1122. 16224305
- [30]Sin DD, Svenson LW, Man SF. Do area‐based markers of poverty accurately measure personal poverty? Can J Public Health Rev Can Sante Publique. 2001; 92(3): 184‐ 187. PMC6979953 11496626
- [31]Demissie K, Hanley JA, Menzies D, Joseph L, Ernst P. Agreement in measuring socio‐economic status: area‐based versus individual measures. Chronic Dis Can. 2000; 21(1): 1826‐ 7. 10813687
- [32]Coughlin SS. Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990; 43(1): 87‐ 91. 2319285
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vallone, F., Lemmo, D., Martino, M. L., Donizzetti, A. R., Freda, M. F., Palumbo, F., Lorenzo, E., D’Argenzio, A., & Caso, D. (2022) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5997 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review
Palsola, M., Likki, T., Snijders, V., Corbex, M., Lasierra, L., & Curtis, B. (2026) · Glasnik javnog zdravlja · doi:10.5937/serbjph2601086p
- Authors
- Moustaqim‐Barrette, A., Spinelli, J. J., Kazanjian, A., & Dummer, T. J. B.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- BC Cancer Agency (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Moustaqim‐Barrette, Amina
- Venue
- Cancer Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-02-21
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1826-1834
- ISSN
- 2045-7634 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6488132
- OpenAlex
- W2977709247
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Cancer Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- University of British Columbia
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Migration, Health and Trauma
- Keywords
- colorectal cancer screening, screening adherence, immigrants, population-based screening program, health disparities, screening uptake, long-term immigrants, new immigrants, Ontario
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Occult Blood, Ontario, Patient Compliance, Sigmoidoscopy, Socioeconomic Factors, Colorectal Neoplasms, Program Evaluation, Emigrants and Immigrants, Early Detection of Cancer
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
