1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Uptake for cervical screening by ethnicity and place-of-birth: a population-based cross-sectional study.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Previous research indicates low screening uptake among South Asian women. We aimed to generate contemporary evidence of uptake by ethnicity using the screening records of eligible women resident in Manchester (n = 72613). Uptake among South Asians was lower than among other women, a difference explained by area- and practice-level confounding. A higher proportion of South Asians were recorded as 'never screened', an effect only partially explained by confounding. In practices with relatively large South Asian populations, uptake was higher among South Asians. Women born in a diverse range of overseas countries had uptake rates below 60 per cent and approximately a third of women born overseas were recorded as 'never screened'. If comprehensive coverage is to be achieved in inner city areas attention should now focus on the needs of a diverse range of ethnic minority groups other than South Asians. The routine collection of ethnicity data in primary care is also indicated.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          J Public Health (Oxf)
          Journal of public health (Oxford, England)
          Oxford University Press (OUP)
          1741-3842
          1741-3842
          Sep 2004
          : 26
          : 3
          Affiliations
          [1 ] School of Epidemiology and Health Sciences, University of Manchester, 1st Floor, Stopford Building, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. roger.webb@man.ac.uk
          Article
          26/3/293
          10.1093/pubmed/fdh128
          15454600
          44efce86-8fe9-496c-b247-8d709c765ef4
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article