Literature DB >> 27894911

Personal and provider level factors influence participation to cervical cancer screening: A retrospective register-based study of 1.3 million women in Norway.

Maarit K Leinonen1, Suzanne Campbell2, Ole Klungsøyr3, Stefan Lönnberg4, Bo T Hansen2, Mari Nygård2.   

Abstract

High coverage is essential for an effective screening programme. Here we present screening barriers and facilitators among 1.3 million women aged 25-69years eligible for screening within the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Program (NCCSP). We defined non-adherence as no screening test in 2008-2012. We divided adherent women into those screened spontaneously, and those who had a smear after receiving a reminder from the NCCSP. Explanatory variables were extracted from several nationwide registers, and modelled by modified Poisson regression. In total, 34% of women were non-adherent. 31% of native Norwegians were non-adherent, compared to 50% of immigrants. Immigrant status was a strong predictor of non-adherence, but the vast majority of non-adherent women were still native Norwegians. Higher non-adherence rates were associated with having a male general practitioner (GP), a foreign GP, a young GP, and distance to the screening site. Being unmarried, having no children, having lower socioeconomic position and region of residence predicted non-adherence and, to a smaller extent, reminded adherence to screening. In contrast, previous experience with cervical abnormalities substantially increased adherence to screening. The population-based screening programme promotes equity by recruiting women who are less likely to participate spontaneously. However, socioeconomic disparities were evident in a country with a nationwide programme and a policy of equal access to health care. Initiatives aimed at removing practical and financial barriers to equitable screening delivery and at reducing the effect of sociodemographic attributes on screening participation are needed.
Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Equity; Population-based; Screening programme; Smear-taker; Socioeconomic position

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27894911     DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.11.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  16 in total

1.  How does information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening alter the intention to be screened?: a randomized survey of Norwegian women.

Authors:  Anita L Iyer; M Kate Bundorf; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Pascale-Renée Cyr; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.497

2.  Barriers to cervical cancer screening faced by immigrants: a registry-based study of 1.4 million women in Norway.

Authors:  Maarit K Leinonen; Suzanne Campbell; Giske Ursin; Ameli Tropé; Mari Nygård
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 3.367

3.  Time and temperature dependent analytical stability of dry-collected Evalyn HPV self-sampling brush for cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Ditte Møller Ejegod; Helle Pedersen; Garazi Peña Alzua; Camilla Pedersen; Jesper Bonde
Journal:  Papillomavirus Res       Date:  2018-04-22

4.  Trends in cervical cancer incidence and survival in Estonia from 1995 to 2014.

Authors:  Kristiina Ojamaa; Kaire Innos; Aleksei Baburin; Hele Everaus; Piret Veerus
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 4.430

5.  Time trends in prostate cancer screening in Swiss primary care (2010 to 2017) - A retrospective study.

Authors:  Stefan Zechmann; Stefania Di Gangi; Vladimir Kaplan; Rahel Meier; Thomas Rosemann; Fabio Valeri; Oliver Senn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Immigration, screening, and cervical cancer incidence: an application of Age-Period-Cohort analysis.

Authors:  Dania Bucchi; Manuela Chiavarini; Fortunato Bianconi; Maria E Galeotti; Alessio Gili; Fabrizio Stracci
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 2.497

7.  Impact of family physicians on cervical cancer screening: cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey in a region of southern Poland.

Authors:  Katarzyna Nessler; Sze Kay Florence Chan; Francis Ball; Monika Storman; Michal Chwalek; Anna Krztoń-Królewiecka; Elżbieta Kryj-Radziszewska; Adam Windak
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-08-30       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Patient, provider, and clinic factors associated with the use of cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Christine Vogeli; Liyang Yu; Steven J Atlas; Celette Sugg Skinner; Kimberly A Harris; Sarah Feldman; Jasmin A Tiro
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2021-06-23

9.  Strong association between cervical and breast cancer screening behaviour among Danish women; A register-based cohort study.

Authors:  S H Larsen; L F Virgilsen; B K Kristiansen; B Andersen; P Vedsted
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2018-10-27

10.  Cervical Cancer Screening Participation among Women of Russian, Somali, and Kurdish Origin Compared with the General Finnish Population: A Register-Based Study.

Authors:  Esther E Idehen; Anni Virtanen; Eero Lilja; Tomi-Pekka Tuomainen; Tellervo Korhonen; Päivikki Koponen
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-10-28       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.