L Elit1, R Saskin2, R Raut3, L Elliott3, J Murphy4, L Marrett3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; Ontario Cervical Screening Program, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Canada. Electronic address: laurie.elit@jcc.hhsc.ca. 2. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada. 3. Ontario Cervical Screening Program, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Canada. 4. Ontario Cervical Screening Program, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Canada; Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A cervical cytology based screening program is effective if there is regular screening of the 'at risk' population and close follow-up of those labeled abnormal. METHODS: This is a population cohort study of women between 20-69 year old who were eligible in Ontario from 2008-2010. We used administrative data to evaluate the rates of cervical cancer screening and follow-up of high grade Pap tests. Variation in cervical cytology coverage and follow-up of high grade abnormal results are associated with age, area level income and health region. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent factors associated with screening and followup. RESULTS: 3.7million women were eligible for screening of which 72% had a Pap smear in the prior 3years. These rates varied by age, income and region (p<0.0001). Women residing in the lowest income neighborhoods were half as likely to be screened (p<0.0001). 83% of those with an high grade intraepithelial lesion Pap test result had follow-up with colposcopy or treatment within 6months and this varied by year, age, income and region (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite universal health coverage, cervical cancer screening rates are suboptimal with older and low income women being at greatest risk. Follow-up among women with high grade abnormal tests is mediocre at 3months and acceptable at 6months. Novel models of cervical cancer screening program implementation are needed to address these inadequacies.
INTRODUCTION: A cervical cytology based screening program is effective if there is regular screening of the 'at risk' population and close follow-up of those labeled abnormal. METHODS: This is a population cohort study of women between 20-69 year old who were eligible in Ontario from 2008-2010. We used administrative data to evaluate the rates of cervical cancer screening and follow-up of high grade Pap tests. Variation in cervical cytology coverage and follow-up of high grade abnormal results are associated with age, area level income and health region. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent factors associated with screening and followup. RESULTS: 3.7million women were eligible for screening of which 72% had a Pap smear in the prior 3years. These rates varied by age, income and region (p<0.0001). Women residing in the lowest income neighborhoods were half as likely to be screened (p<0.0001). 83% of those with an high grade intraepithelial lesion Pap test result had follow-up with colposcopy or treatment within 6months and this varied by year, age, income and region (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite universal health coverage, cervical cancer screening rates are suboptimal with older and low income women being at greatest risk. Follow-up among women with high grade abnormal tests is mediocre at 3months and acceptable at 6months. Novel models of cervical cancer screening program implementation are needed to address these inadequacies.
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; Sallie Weaver; Veronica Chollette; Lawrence B Marks; Andrew Jacobs; Gordon Schiff; Carrie T Stricker; Suanna S Bruinooge; Eduardo Salas Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Daiva M Ragas; Narissa J Nonzee; Laura S Tom; Ava M Phisuthikul; Thanh Ha Luu; XinQi Dong; Melissa A Simon Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2014 Sep-Oct
Authors: Jonathan Simkin; Laurie Smith; Dirk van Niekerk; Hannah Caird; Tania Dearden; Kimberly van der Hoek; Nadine R Caron; Ryan R Woods; Stuart Peacock; Gina Ogilvie Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2021-04-22
Authors: Laurie W Smith; Fareeza Khurshed; Dirk J van Niekerk; Mel Krajden; Sandra B Greene; Suzanne Hobbs; Andrew J Coldman; Eduardo L Franco; Gina S Ogilvie Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-10-10 Impact factor: 3.295