Table 2

Participation rates by ethnicity/race in organised colorectal screening programmes

Country/regionParticipation by ethnicity (reference)Classification of ethnicity
AustraliaNot studied
Belgium—FlandersIn progress*
Belgium—Wallonia and BrusselsNo information
Canada—Nova ScotiaNot studied*
Canada—OntarioNot studied*
Canada—SaskatchewanNo information
CroatiaNot studied*
DenmarkOR 0.62 (non-Western individuals) —OR 1.00 (Danes). The association between ethnicity and participation attenuated after adjustment for SES: OR 0.9339Ethnicity categorised as Danish, Western immigrants and non-Western immigrants
FinlandIn progress*
FranceNot studied*
IrelandNo information
Italy34% immigrants—51% Italians36Nationality: immigrants (non-Italian) or Italians.
29% foreign—31% Italian38Nationality: Italian or foreign (from high migration pressure countries)
JapanNot studied*
Korea SouthNo information
MaltaNo information
MartiniqueNo information
Netherlands21% Middle East and Central East, 34% African, 36% Surinamese and Antillean, 38% South Asian and South-East Asian, 46% other Western, 52% ethnic Dutch34Grouped in (1) ethnic Dutch; (2) other Western; (3) Surinamese and Antillean; (4) South Asian and South-East Asian; (5) Middle East and Central East and (6) African
SloveniaCountry of first residence: 36% Macedonia, 42% Bosnia, 44% Serbia, 56% Croatia, 61% Slovenia*Country of first residence
Spain—BasqueNo information
Spain—BarcelonaNot studied*
Sweden—Stockholm/ GotlandIn progress*
UK30% South Asians—56% for non-Asians in 2000–200235Religion–linguistic groups by name recognition software: South Asian (Hindu-Gujarati; Hindu-Other; Muslim; Sikh; South Asian Other) and non-Asian
Including deprivation factors, the lower test kit return for postcode sectors with higher ethnic diversity substantially reduced42Quintiles based on ethnic diversity (% of non-white residents within a postcode sector) with Q1 least diverse and Q5 most diverse.
The most ethnically diverse areas had lower uptake. Q1: 55%, Q2: 56%, Q3: 55%, Q4: 52%, Q5: 38%12Ethnic diversity (% of non-white residents within a postcode sector) with quintile 1: 0%–1.04% non-white residents, quintile 2: 1.05%–1.77%, quintile 3: 1.78%–3.65%, quintile 4: 3.66%–11.80%, quintile 5: 11.81%–100%
Not significant
57% white, 50% non-white40		Ethnicity: white, mixed, Asian or Asian British, black or black British, Chinese, other. Ninety-one per cent of the sample was white so this variable was recoded into white vs non-white
42% non-white respondents—70% white respondents44Not mentioned
40% in areas with a high proportion of individuals from the Indian subcontinent—54% in areas with a low proportion of individuals from the Indian subcontinent43
52% South Asians, 62% blacks, 71% whites37Ethnicity women (white, black and South Asian)
White—non-white: not significant after multivariate analysis41White and non-white
USA—Kaiser Permanente California55% blacks—63% whites in the group who received FIT by mail.* Based on ref. 49Non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders and Native Americans

  • *Information from national screening contact.

  • In progress: research is in progress.

  • Not studied: confirmation from contact that no data were available.

  • No information: no known literature and no contact response.

  • FIT, faecal immunochemical test; SES, socioeconomic status.