Jean-François Morère1, François Eisinger2,3, Chantal Touboul4, Christine Lhomel5, Sébastien Couraud6, Jérôme Viguier7. 1. INSERM U1193, Département d'Oncologie Médicale, Hôpital Paul Brousse, 12 avenue Paul Vaillant, 94800, Villejuif, France. jean-francois.morere@aphp.fr. 2. Département d'Anticipation et de Suivi du Cancer DASC, Institut Paoli Calmette, 232 boulevard Sainte Marguerite, BP 156, 13273, Marseille Cedex 9, France. 3. INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Aix Marseille University, 23 rue Stanislas Torrents, 13006, Marseille, France. 4. Kantar Health, 3 avenue Pierre Masse, 75014, Paris, France. 5. Roche SAS, 30 cours de l'île Seguin, 92650, Boulogne-Billancourt, France. 6. Service de Pneumologie Aiguë Spécialisée et Cancérologie Thoracique, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, 165 chemin du Grand Revoyet, 69495, Pierre Bénite Cedex, France. 7. CCDC 37, Hôpital Bretonneau, 2 boulevard Tonnellé, 37044, Tours Cedex 9, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We studied cancer screening over time and social vulnerability via surveys of representative populations. METHODS: Individuals aged 50-75 years with no personal history of cancer were questioned about lifetime participation in screening tests, compliance (adherence to recommended intervals [colorectal, breast and cervical cancer]) and opportunistic screening (prostate and lung cancer). RESULTS: The proportion of vulnerable/non-vulnerable individuals remained stable between 2011 and 2016. In 2011, social vulnerability had no impact on screening participation, nor on compliance. In 2014, however, vulnerability was correlated with less frequent uptake of colorectal screening (despite an organised programme) and prostate cancer screening (opportunistic), and also with reduced compliance with recommended intervals (breast and cervical cancer screening). In 2016, the trends observed in 2014 were substantiated and even extended to breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening uptakes. Social vulnerability has an increasingly negative impact on cancer screening attendance. The phenomenon was identified in 2014 and had expanded by 2016. CONCLUSION: Although organised programmes have been shown to ensure equitable access to cancer screening, this remains a precarious achievement requiring regular monitoring. Further studies should focus on attitudes of vulnerable populations and on ways to improve cancer awareness campaigns.
BACKGROUND: We studied cancer screening over time and social vulnerability via surveys of representative populations. METHODS: Individuals aged 50-75 years with no personal history of cancer were questioned about lifetime participation in screening tests, compliance (adherence to recommended intervals [colorectal, breast and cervical cancer]) and opportunistic screening (prostate and lung cancer). RESULTS: The proportion of vulnerable/non-vulnerable individuals remained stable between 2011 and 2016. In 2011, social vulnerability had no impact on screening participation, nor on compliance. In 2014, however, vulnerability was correlated with less frequent uptake of colorectal screening (despite an organised programme) and prostate cancer screening (opportunistic), and also with reduced compliance with recommended intervals (breast and cervical cancer screening). In 2016, the trends observed in 2014 were substantiated and even extended to breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening uptakes. Social vulnerability has an increasingly negative impact on cancer screening attendance. The phenomenon was identified in 2014 and had expanded by 2016. CONCLUSION: Although organised programmes have been shown to ensure equitable access to cancer screening, this remains a precarious achievement requiring regular monitoring. Further studies should focus on attitudes of vulnerable populations and on ways to improve cancer awareness campaigns.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer screening; Government programme; Health behaviour; Opinion pool; Vulnerable population
Authors: Joseph C Anderson; Richard H Fortinsky; Alison Kleppinger; Amanda B Merz-Beyus; Charles G Huntington; Suzanne Lagarde Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-04-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Paul Vaucher; Thomas Bischoff; Esther-Amélie Diserens; Lilli Herzig; Giovanna Meystre-Agustoni; Francesco Panese; Bernard Favrat; Catherine Sass; Patrick Bodenmann Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Andrea Buron; Josep M Auge; Maria Sala; Marta Román; Antoni Castells; Francesc Macià; Mercè Comas; Carolina Guiriguet; Xavier Bessa; Xavier Castells Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Graeme P Young; Erin L Symonds; James E Allison; Stephen R Cole; Callum G Fraser; Stephen P Halloran; Ernst J Kuipers; Helen E Seaman Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Elodie Guillaume; Carole Pornet; Olivier Dejardin; Ludivine Launay; Roberto Lillini; Marina Vercelli; Marc Marí-Dell'Olmo; Amanda Fernández Fontelo; Carme Borrell; Ana Isabel Ribeiro; Maria Fatima de Pina; Alexandra Mayer; Cyrille Delpierre; Bernard Rachet; Guy Launoy Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Désirée Schliemann; Min Min Tan; Wilfred Mok Kok Hoe; Devi Mohan; Nur Aishah Taib; Michael Donnelly; Tin Tin Su Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-08-15 Impact factor: 7.076