OBJECTIVES: Few have compared socio-economic disparities in screening tests for cancer with recommended tests for other chronic diseases. We examined whether receipt of testing for colorectal, cervical and breast cancer, as well as diabetes and high cholesterol, differs by neighbourhood-level socio-economic and recent immigrant status. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of patients identified as screen-eligible in 2009 living in Ontario, Canada. Postal codes were used to assign residents to a dissemination area (DA). Using Canadian census data, DAs were stratified by income quintile and proportion of recent immigrants. Prevalence of screening for cancer (colorectal, cervical, breast), diabetes, and high cholesterol, using administrative data, and prevalence ratios (least/most advantaged) were calculated. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 7,652,592 people. Receipt of screening for colorectal cancer (women 61.6%; men 55.1%) and breast cancer (59.9%) were the lowest and diabetes (women 72.9%; men 61.4%) and high cholesterol (women 82.4%; men 70.3%) were the highest. We found disparities in the receipt of all tests, with the lowest uptake and largest disparities for cancer screening among those living in both low-income and high-immigration DAs: colorectal - women 48.6%; RR 0.77; 95% CI (0.74-0.79) and men 40.6%; RR 0.71 (0.68-0.74); cervical - 52.0%; RR 0.80 (0.78-0.81) and breast - 45.7%; RR 0.74 (0.72-0.77). CONCLUSION: People living in low-income and high-immigration DAs had the lowest screening participation for all tests, although disparities were highest for cancer. An organized integrated chronic disease screening strategy leveraging the higher diabetes and high cholesterol screening participation may increase screening for cancer and other chronic diseases in never- and underscreened populations.
OBJECTIVES: Few have compared socio-economic disparities in screening tests for cancer with recommended tests for other chronic diseases. We examined whether receipt of testing for colorectal, cervical and breast cancer, as well as diabetes and high cholesterol, differs by neighbourhood-level socio-economic and recent immigrant status. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of patients identified as screen-eligible in 2009 living in Ontario, Canada. Postal codes were used to assign residents to a dissemination area (DA). Using Canadian census data, DAs were stratified by income quintile and proportion of recent immigrants. Prevalence of screening for cancer (colorectal, cervical, breast), diabetes, and high cholesterol, using administrative data, and prevalence ratios (least/most advantaged) were calculated. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 7,652,592 people. Receipt of screening for colorectal cancer (women 61.6%; men 55.1%) and breast cancer (59.9%) were the lowest and diabetes (women 72.9%; men 61.4%) and high cholesterol (women 82.4%; men 70.3%) were the highest. We found disparities in the receipt of all tests, with the lowest uptake and largest disparities for cancer screening among those living in both low-income and high-immigration DAs: colorectal - women 48.6%; RR 0.77; 95% CI (0.74-0.79) and men 40.6%; RR 0.71 (0.68-0.74); cervical - 52.0%; RR 0.80 (0.78-0.81) and breast - 45.7%; RR 0.74 (0.72-0.77). CONCLUSION:People living in low-income and high-immigration DAs had the lowest screening participation for all tests, although disparities were highest for cancer. An organized integrated chronic disease screening strategy leveraging the higher diabetes and high cholesterol screening participation may increase screening for cancer and other chronic diseases in never- and underscreened populations.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health care disparities; diabetes; dyslipidemia; early detection of cancer
Authors: Anita Yeomans Kinney; Lindsey E Bloor; Christopher Martin; Robert S Sandler Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: A B Miller; G Anderson; J Brisson; J Laidlaw; N Le Pitre; P Malcolmson; P Mirwaldt; G Stuart; W Sullivan Journal: CMAJ Date: 1991-11-15 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Jacques Genest; Ruth McPherson; Jiri Frohlich; Todd Anderson; Norm Campbell; André Carpentier; Patrick Couture; Robert Dufour; George Fodor; Gordon A Francis; Steven Grover; Milan Gupta; Robert A Hegele; David C Lau; Lawrence Leiter; Gary F Lewis; Eva Lonn; G B John Mancini; Dominic Ng; Glen J Pearson; Allan Sniderman; James A Stone; Ehud Ur Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Richard Henry Glazier; Maria Isabella Creatore; Piotr Gozdyra; Flora I Matheson; Leah S Steele; Eleanor Boyle; Rahim Moineddin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Robert P Myers; Pam Crotty; Susanna Town; Janine English; Kevin Fonseca; Raymond Tellier; Mark G Swain; S Elizabeth McGregor; Steven J Heitman; Robert J Hilsden Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2015-01-13
Authors: Jack V Tu; Laura C Maclagan; Dennis T Ko; Clare L Atzema; Gillian L Booth; Sharon Johnston; Karen Tu; Douglas S Lee; Arlene Bierman; Ruth Hall; R Sacha Bhatia; Andrea S Gershon; Sheldon W Tobe; Claudia Sanmartin; Peter Liu; Anna Chu Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2017-04-25
Authors: Kimberly A Fernandes; Rinku Sutradhar; Cornelia M Borkhoff; Nancy Baxter; Aisha Lofters; Linda Rabeneck; Jill Tinmouth; Lawrence Paszat Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2015-10-29
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: A K Lofters; M A O'Brien; R Sutradhar; A D Pinto; N N Baxter; P Donnelly; R Elliott; R H Glazier; J Huizinga; R Kyle; D M Manca; M A Pietrusiak; L Rabeneck; B Riordan; P Selby; K Sivayoganathan; C Snider; N Sopcak; K Thorpe; J Tinmouth; B Wall; F Zuo; E Grunfeld; L Paszat Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 3.295