Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 340

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England

von Wagner, Christian, Baio, Gianluca, Raine, Rosalind, Snowball, Julia, Morris, Stephen, Atkin, Wendy, Obichere, Austin, Handley, Graham, Logan, Richard F, Rainbow, Sandra, Smith, Stephen, Halloran, Stephen, Wardle, Jane·2011·International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An organized, population-based, colorectal cancer screening programme was initiated in England in 2006 offering biennial faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) to adults aged 60-69 years. Organized screening programmes with no associated financial costs to the individual should minimize barriers to access for lower socio-economic status (SES) groups. However, SES differences in uptake were observed in the pilot centres of the UK programme, so the aim of this analysis was to identify the extent of inequalities in uptake by SES, ethnic diversity, gender and age in the first 28 months of the programme. Design Cross-sectional analysis of colorectal cancer screening uptake data. METHODS: Between October 2006 and January 2009, over 2.6 million adults aged 60-69 years were mailed a first FOBT kit by the five regional screening hubs. Uptake was defined as return of a test kit within 13 weeks. We used multivariate generalized linear regression to examine variation by area-based socioeconomic deprivation, area-based ethnicity, gender and age. RESULTS: Uptake was 54%, but showed a gradient across quintiles of deprivation, ranging from 35% in the most deprived quintile to 61% in the least deprived. Multivariate analyses confirmed an independent effect of deprivation, with stronger effects in women and older people. The most ethnically diverse areas also had lower uptake (38%) than other areas (52-58%) independent of SES, age, gender and regional screening hub. Ethnic disparities were more pronounced in men but equivalent across age groups. More women than men returned a kit (56 vs 51%), but there was also an interaction with age, with uptake increasing with age in men (49% at 60-64 years; 53% at 65-69 years) but not women (57 vs 56%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall uptake rates in this organized screening programme were encouraging, but nonetheless there was low uptake in the most ethnically diverse areas and a striking gradient by SES. Action to promote equality of uptake is needed to avoid widening inequalities in cancer mortality.

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/dyr008

Cites

30 of 30 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 30 references

Cited by

See all 340

Metadata

Authors
von Wagner, C., Baio, G., Raine, R., Snowball, J., Morris, S., Atkin, W., Obichere, A., Handley, G., Logan, R. F., Rainbow, S., Smith, S., Halloran, S., & Wardle, J.
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2011-02-17
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
712-718
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W2158548262
Cited by
340
References
30
FWCI
15.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ije/dyr008
The paper
von Wagner, C., Baio, G., Raine, R., Snowball, J., Morris, S., Atkin, W., Obichere, A., Handley, G., Logan, R. F., Rainbow, S., Smith, S., Halloran, S., & Wardle, J. (2011). Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. International Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr008

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.