Social disparities in access to breast and cervical cancer screening by women living in Spain
Abstract
Objectives To describe uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening by women living in Spain, analyse the possible associated social and health factors, and compare uptake rates with those obtained in previous surveys. Study design Cross-sectional study using data from the 2011 Spanish national health survey. Methods Uptake of breast cancer screening was analysed by asking women aged 40-69 years whether they had undergone mammography in the previous two years. Uptake of cervical cancer screening was analysed by asking women aged 25-65 years whether they had undergone cervical cytology in the previous three years. Independent variables included sociodemographic characteristics, and variables related to health status and lifestyle. Results Seventy-two percent of women had undergone mammography in the previous two years. Having private health insurance increased the probability of breast screening uptake four-fold [odds ratio (OR) 3.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.71-5.79], and being an immigrant was a negative predictor for breast screening uptake. Seventy percent of women had undergone cervical cytology in the previous three years. Higher-educated women were more likely to have undergone cervical cancer screening (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.97-3.40), and obese women and women living in rural areas were less likely to have undergone cervical cancer screening. There have been no relevant improvements in uptake rates of either breast or cervical cancer screening since 2006. Conclusio…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Certain groups of the target population do not attend screening.
“Second, certain groups of the target population do not attend screening.15 16 17”
From Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses (2018) · cites this paper as [16]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 41 · Cited by 54
- Authors
- Ricardo-Rodrigues, I., Jiménez-García, R., Hernández-Barrera, V., Carrasco-Garrido, P., Jiménez-Trujillo, I., & López de Andrés, A.
- Affiliations
- Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (ES)
- Venue
- Public Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-07
- Volume
- 129
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 881-888
- ISSN
- 0033-3506 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1773397371
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 2.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
- Keywords
- breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, mammography, cervical cytology, screening uptake, social disparities, health care access, private health insurance, immigrant women, educational attainment, obesity, rural residence, Spain
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Breast Neoplasms, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Life Style, Mammography, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Spain, Vaginal Smears, Odds Ratio, Health Care Surveys, Emigrants and Immigrants, Healthcare Disparities, 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