ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2025
Child caregiving and cancer screening: a nationally representative analysis.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predictors of anal and cervical cancer screening uptake among adults with and without HIV: survey of a community-based health clinic network.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePreliminary studies have suggested child caregivers ('caregivers') may experience childcare barriers to cancer screening. The objective of this study was to compare cancer screening adherence among caregivers and non-caregivers in a nationally representative sample.
methodsThis cross-sectional analysis used 2021-2023 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey data. Caregivers were defined as adults 18-65 employed as a 'homemaker' with child(ren) in the home. The primary outcome was colorectal cancer screening adherence, and secondary outcomes were breast and cervical cancer screening adherence. Relative risks (RR) of screening adherence were estimated using regression models adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, income, education, payer status, marital status, employment, language, self-rated health, and year. Models used survey standard error estimation and sampling weights. Sensitivity analyses tested two alternative caregiver definitions: adults 18-65 with child(ren) and employed adults 18-65 with child(ren).
resultsThere were 1,317,148 participants (weighted: 255,041,726); 2.9% of the weighted sample were caregivers, 95.3% of whom were women. Most caregivers were married or partnered, identified as non-white, and reported <$50,000 for household income. In adjusted analyses, caregiver status was associated with significantly lower rates of colorectal (aRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-0.98) and breast (aRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.98) cancer screening adherence, but not cervical cancer screening adherence (aRR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95-1.09). Sensitivity analyses with alternative caregiver definitions similarly showed lower rates of colorectal and breast cancer screening adherence but not for cervical cancer screening.
conclusionCaregivers had lower adherence to colorectal and breast cancer screening but not cervical cancer screening, consistent across multiple exposure definitions. Child caregiving may pose barriers to cancer screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.