ArticleJAMA network open2026
Barriers to Health Care and Cancer Screening.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Time to Cancer Screening Completion Following an SMS Reminder Intervention in a Large Federally Qualified Health Center Network: Secondary Data Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Racial and/or Ethnic Differences in Adherence to Preventive Care Guidelines among US Adults Using a Nationally Representative Survey of All Eight Major Racial and/or Ethnic Populations.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic Deprivation, Primary Care Physician Workload and Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence Across Italian Regions: An Ecological Spatial Analysis.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Rural-Urban Differences in Cervical Cancer Screening Patterns: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Identification of health care access-related factors associated with lower rates of cancer screening may help inform targeted interventions to mitigate barriers and ameliorate screening disparities. Objective: To examine the multifaceted obstacles associated with screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer in a diverse population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included longitudinal data from the National Institutes of Health's All of Us (AoU) Research Program (2017-2023). Nonincarcerated individuals aged 18 years or older residing in the US were eligible to participate by enrolling either online or through 1 of approximately 67 health care organizations. Identified participants within the AoU Research Program met US Preventive Services Task Force screening criteria for breast, colorectal, cervical, lung, or prostate cancer. Data were analyzed from October 2024 to January 2026. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants self-reported whether 9 potential barriers delayed their medical care in the past year. Multivariable-adjusted odds ratios were estimated for the association between each barrier, the barrier burden, as well as for patterns of interrelated barriers identified using factor analysis and adherence to cancer screening recommendations. Results: In total, 160 691 participants were eligible for cancer screening including 42 908 participants in the breast (median age at last follow-up, 60 [IQR, 52-67] years; 100% female), 45 791 in the cervical (median age at last follow-up, 46 [IQR, 35-56] years; 100% female), 55 986 in the colorectal (median age at last follow-up, 66 [IQR, 57-73] years; 63% female), 3358 in the lung (median age at last follow-up, 66 [IQR, 59-72] years; 53% female), and 12 648 in the prostate cancer (median age at last follow-up, 63 [IQR, 59-66] years; 100% male) screening cohorts. Out-of-pocket costs, nervousness about seeing clinicians, and inability to get time off work were the most cited barriers. Participants reporting 3 or more barriers to care had significantly lower screening rates compared with those who reported no barriers for all cancer types, ranging from 18% (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.88) for colorectal cancer to 32% (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.97) for lung cancer. Three latent factors were consistently identified across cancer sites reflecting cost concerns, logistical barriers (eg, transportation), and competing obligations (eg, time off work). In multivariable analyses, cost concerns were associated with odds of screening for breast cancer (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.80), cervical cancer (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87), and colorectal cancer (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.94) and logistical barriers for breast cancer (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.89), cervical cancer (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65- 0.93), and colorectal cancer (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of participants eligible for cancer screening, barriers to access and barriers related to cost concerns and logistics were associated with lower screening rates. Policies and interventions must target multiple dimensions of access simultaneously to increase 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.