↓ Skip to main content

Uptake of Bowel Scope (Flexible Sigmoidoscopy) Screening in the English National Programme: the first 14 months

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Screening, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 638)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Uptake of Bowel Scope (Flexible Sigmoidoscopy) Screening in the English National Programme: the first 14 months
Published in
Journal of Medical Screening, September 2015
DOI 10.1177/0969141315604659
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To examine uptake in the first six pilot centres of the English Bowel Scope Screening (BSS) programme, which began in early 2013 and invites adults aged 55 for a one off Flexible Sigmoidoscopy. Between March 2013 and May 2014 the six pilot centres sent 21,187 invitations. Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, we examined variation in uptake by gender, socioeconomic deprivation (using the Index of Multiple Deprivation), area-based ethnic diversity (proportion of non-white residents), screening centre, and appointment time (routine: daytime vs out-of-hours: evening/weekend). Uptake was 43.1%. Men were more likely to attend than women (45% vs 42%; OR 1.136, 95% CI 1.076, 1.199, p < 0.001). Combining data across centres, there was a socioeconomic gradient in uptake, ranging from 33% in the most deprived to 53% in the least deprived quintile. Areas with the highest level of ethnic diversity also had lower uptake (39%) than other areas (41-47%) (all p < 0.02), but there was no gradient. Individuals offered a routine appointment were less likely to attend than those offered an out-of-hours appointment (42% vs. 44%; OR 0.931, 95% CI 0.882, 0.983, p = 0.01). Multivariate analyses confirmed independent effects of deprivation, gender, and centre, but not of ethnic diversity or appointment time. Early indications of uptake are encouraging. Future efforts should focus on increasing public awareness of the programme and reducing socioeconomic inequalities.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 18%
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Student > Master 9 15%
Other 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 28%
Psychology 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 19 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 90. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 February 2024.
All research outputs
#566,889
of 30,047,233 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Screening
#9
of 638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,947
of 288,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Screening
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 30,047,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,975 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them