Literature DB >> 29508088

Fluctuating Behavior of the French Population in Cancer Screening: 5th Edition of the EDIFICE Survey.

Jérôme Viguier1, Jean-François Morère2, Xavier Pivot3, Chantal Touboul4, Christine Lhomel5, Sébastien Couraud6, Thibault de La Motte Rouge7, François Eisinger8,9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The EDIFICE surveys have assessed cancer screening behavior in the French population since 2005.
METHODS: The 2016 edition was conducted among a representative sample of 1501 individuals (age, 50-75 years). The current analysis focuses on breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, and cervical cancer screening.
RESULTS: The rate of women (50 to 74 years) declaring having had at least one breast cancer screening test in their lifetime remained stable and high between 2005 and 2016. Compliance with recommended screening intervals improved between 2005 and 2011 from 75 to 83%, respectively, then decreased significantly to 75% in 2016 (P = 0.02). Uptake of at least one lifetime colorectal cancer screening test procedure declared (individuals aged 50-74 years) increase from 25% in 2005 to 59% in 2011, stabilized at 60% in 2014, then reached 64% in 2016. Opportunistic prostate cancer screening (men aged 50-75 years) rose between 2005 and 2008 from 36 to 49%, plateaued until 2014 then dropped to 42% in 2016. The proportion of women aged 50-65 declaring having undergone one cervical cancer screening test dropped significantly between 2014 and 2016 from 99 to 94% (P < 0.01). Lastly, 11% of our survey population in 2014 and 2016 (55-74 years) declared having already undergone lung cancer screening.
CONCLUSION: Cancer screening behavior fluctuates in France, regardless of the context, i.e., organized programs or opportunistic screening. This observation highlights the need for constant analysis of population attitudes to optimize public awareness campaigns.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer screening; Government program; Health behavior; Opinion pool

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29508088     DOI: 10.1007/s11912-017-0646-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep        ISSN: 1523-3790            Impact factor:   5.075


  26 in total

1.  Commentary on "prostate cancer screening in the randomized prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial: Mortality results after 13 years of follow-up". Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL III, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, Fouad MN, Isaacs C, Kvale PA, Reding DJ, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, O'Brien B, Ragard LR, Clapp JD, Rathmell JM, Riley TL, Hsing AW, Izmirlian G, Pinsky PF, Kramer BS, Miller AB, Gohagan JK, Prorok PC; PLCO Project Team.Collaborators (18) Buring JE, Alberts D, Carter HB, Chodak G, Hawk E, Malm H, Mayer RJ, Piantadosi S, Silvestri GA, Thompson IM, Westhoff CL, Kahn JP, Levin B, DeMets D, O'Fallon JR, Porter AT, Ashton MM, Black WC, Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA: J. Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104(2):125-32. Epub January 6, 2012.

Authors:  Joseph A Smith
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.498

2.  Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Páez; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paula M Kujala; Bert G Blijenberg; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Andreas Huber; Kimmo Taari; Matti Hakama; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  The effectiveness of screening for prostate cancer: a nested case-control study.

Authors:  John Concato; Carolyn K Wells; Ralph I Horwitz; David Penson; Graeme Fincke; Dan R Berlowitz; Gregory Froehlich; Dawna Blake; Martyn A Vickers; Gerald A Gehr; Nabil H Raheb; Gail Sullivan; Peter Peduzzi
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2006-01-09

Review 4.  Large population survey: strengths and limits. Methodology of the EDIFICE survey.

Authors:  Claire Roussel; Chantal Touboul
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.497

5.  Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-30       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Breast cancer screening controversy: too much or not enough?

Authors:  Xavier Pivot; Jérôme Viguier; Chantal Touboul; Jean-François Morère; Jean-Yves Blay; Yvan Coscas; Christine Lhomel; François Eisinger
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.497

Review 7.  Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: Moving Beyond BRCA 1 and 2.

Authors:  Jennifer Scalia-Wilbur; Bradley L Colins; Richard T Penson; Don S Dizon
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 5.934

Review 8.  Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Michael Pignone; Melissa Rich; Steven M Teutsch; Alfred O Berg; Kathleen N Lohr
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 9.  Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Robert Hodgson; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Susan C Harvey; Mary Edwards; Javed Shaikh; Mick Arber; Julie Glanville
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2016-03-25       Impact factor: 4.380

10.  Clinical consequences of screening for prostate cancer: 15 years follow-up of a randomised controlled trial in Sweden.

Authors:  Gabriel Sandblom; Eberhard Varenhorst; Owe Löfman; Johan Rosell; Per Carlsson
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 20.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.