Breast and bowel cancer screening uptake patterns over 15 years for UK south Asian ethnic minority populations, corrected for differences in socio-demographic characteristics
2008

Breast and Bowel Cancer Screening in UK South Asian Populations

Sample size: 240140 publication Evidence: high

Author Information

Author(s): Ala Szczepura, Charlotte Price, Anil Gumber

Primary Institution: Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick

Hypothesis

The study investigates the uptake patterns of breast and bowel cancer screening among South Asian populations in the UK, adjusted for socio-demographic differences.

Conclusion

The study found that lower cancer screening uptakes in South Asian populations cannot be attributed to socio-economic, age, or gender differences, and significant disparities remain.

Supporting Evidence

  • South Asians had a bowel screening uptake of 32.8% compared to 61.3% for non-Asians in round 1.
  • Breast screening uptake for South Asians was 60.8% compared to 75.4% for non-Asians in round 1.
  • Muslim subgroup had the lowest screening rates, with 26.1% for bowel screening in round 1.
  • Breast screening disparities have reduced over time, but significant differences remain.

Takeaway

This study shows that fewer South Asian people in the UK go for cancer screenings compared to others, and even though more are going now than before, there are still big gaps.

Methodology

The study analyzed screening data from two cancer screening programs in Coventry and Warwickshire, comparing uptake between South Asian and non-Asian populations across multiple rounds.

Potential Biases

Ethnicity is poorly recorded in the UK, which may affect the analysis of inequalities in access to services.

Limitations

The study could not assess the African Caribbean population due to incomplete ethnic monitoring data.

Participant Demographics

The study focused on South Asian populations, including Hindu-Gujarati, Hindu-Other, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian Other subgroups.

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.001

Confidence Interval

95% CI: 12.6 to 16.5

Statistical Significance

p<0.001

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1471-2458-8-346

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication