Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 430

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Socio-economic inequalities in breast and cervical cancer screening practices in Europe: influence of the type of screening program

Open access
Palencia, L., Espelt, A., Rodriguez-Sanz, M., Puigpinos, R., Pons-Vigues, M., Pasarin, M. I., Spadea, T., Kunst, A. E., Borrell, C.·2010·International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe inequalities in the use of breast and cervical cancer screening services according to educational level in European countries in 2002, and to determine the influence of the type of screening program on the extent of inequality. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed using individual-level data from the WHO World Health Survey (2002) and data regarding the implementation of cancer screening programmes. The study population consisted of women from 22 European countries, aged 25-69 years for cervical cancer screening (n =11 770) and 50-69 years for breast cancer screening (n = 4784). Dependent variables were having had a PAP smear and having had a mammography during the previous 3 years. The main independent variables were socio-economic position (SEP) and the type of screening program in the country. For each country the prevalence of screening was calculated, overall and for each level of education, and indices of relative (RII) and absolute (SII) inequality were computed by educational level. Multilevel logistic regression models were fitted. RESULTS: SEP inequalities in screening were found in countries with opportunistic screening [comparing highest with lowest educational level: RII = 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.48 for cervical cancer; and RII = 3.11, 95% CI 1.78-5.42 for breast cancer] but not in countries with nationwide population-based programmes. Inequalities were also observed in countries with regional screening programs (RII = 1.35, 95% CI 1.10-1.65 for cervical cancer; and RII = 1.58, 95% CI 1.26-1.98 for breast cancer). CONCLUSIONS: Inequalities in the use of cancer screening according to SEP are higher in countries without population-based cancer screening programmes. These results highlight the potential benefits of population-based screening programmes.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ije/dyq003

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 430

Metadata

Authors
Palencia, L., Espelt, A., Rodriguez-Sanz, M., Puigpinos, R., Pons-Vigues, M., Pasarin, M. I., Spadea, T., Kunst, A. E., & Borrell, C.
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2010-02-22
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
757-765
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W2114316393
Cited by
430
References
2
FWCI
23.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Socio-economic inequalities in breast and cervical cancer screening practices in Europe: influence of the type of screening program. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ije/dyq003
The paper
Palencia, L., Espelt, A., Rodriguez-Sanz, M., Puigpinos, R., Pons-Vigues, M., Pasarin, M. I., Spadea, T., Kunst, A. E., & Borrell, C. (2010). Socio-economic inequalities in breast and cervical cancer screening practices in Europe: influence of the type of screening program. International Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq003

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.