Stéphanie Mignot1, Virginie Ringa2, Solène Vigoureux2,3, Marie Zins4, Henri Panjo2, Pierre-Jean Saulnier5, Xavier Fritel6. 1. Department of General Practice, University of Poitiers, France: 3 rue de la Milétrie, 86000, Poitiers, France. stephanie.mignot@univ-poitiers.fr. 2. CESP Centre for research in Epidemiology and Population Health, U1018, Gender, Sexuality and Health team, University Paris-Saclay, University Paris-Sud, UVSQ, Villejuif, Ined, France. 3. Obstetrics & Gynecology department, Hôpital Bicêtre, GHU Sud, AP-HP, Faculty of Medicine, Univ of Paris Sud, F-94276, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France. 4. Epidemiological Population-Based Cohorts Unit, INSERM UMS 11,Villejuif, France, University of Paris-Descartes, Paris, France. 5. Clinical Investigation Centre CIC1402 INSERM, School of Medicine, Poitiers University, CHU Poitiers (University Hospital), 86000, Poitiers, France. 6. Clinical Research Centree CIC1402, INSERM, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Medicine Poitiers University Hospital Centre, University of Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many countries currently recommend that screening for cervical cancer begin at the age of 25 years. Premature screening (before that age) could lead to unnecessary follow-up examinations and procedures that turn out to be useless. Our objective is to ascertain if the use of particular contraceptive methods are associated with premature screening. METHODS: This cross-sectional study based on the CONSTANCES cohort enabled us to include 4297 women younger than 25 years. The factors associated with premature screening were modeled by logistic regression. Missing data were handled by multiple imputations. The multivariate analyses were adjusted for sex life, social and demographic characteristics, and health status. RESULTS: Nearly half (48.5%) the women younger than 25 years had already undergone premature screening. Women not using contraceptives (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.3-0.5) and those using nonmedicalized contraceptives (condom, spermicide, etc.) (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.6) had premature screening less often than women using birth control pills. Higher risks of premature screening were observed in 20-year-old women (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 2.2-3.3) and in those with more than 5 lifetime partners (aOR 2.5, 95% CI 2.0-3.1), compared respectively with women who were younger and those with 5 or fewer lifetime partners. CONCLUSION: Young women using contraceptives that require a doctor's prescription are exposed to premature screening more often than those not using contraception and those with nonmedicalized contraceptives.
BACKGROUND: Many countries currently recommend that screening for cervical cancer begin at the age of 25 years. Premature screening (before that age) could lead to unnecessary follow-up examinations and procedures that turn out to be useless. Our objective is to ascertain if the use of particular contraceptive methods are associated with premature screening. METHODS: This cross-sectional study based on the CONSTANCES cohort enabled us to include 4297 women younger than 25 years. The factors associated with premature screening were modeled by logistic regression. Missing data were handled by multiple imputations. The multivariate analyses were adjusted for sex life, social and demographic characteristics, and health status. RESULTS: Nearly half (48.5%) the women younger than 25 years had already undergone premature screening. Women not using contraceptives (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.3-0.5) and those using nonmedicalized contraceptives (condom, spermicide, etc.) (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.6) had premature screening less often than women using birth control pills. Higher risks of premature screening were observed in 20-year-old women (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 2.2-3.3) and in those with more than 5 lifetime partners (aOR 2.5, 95% CI 2.0-3.1), compared respectively with women who were younger and those with 5 or fewer lifetime partners. CONCLUSION: Young women using contraceptives that require a doctor's prescription are exposed to premature screening more often than those not using contraception and those with nonmedicalized contraceptives.
Authors: Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Stephen Shiboski; Nancy K Hills; Kimberly J Powell; Naomi Jay; Evelyn N Hanson; Susanna Miller; K Lisa Canjura-Clayton; Sepidah Farhat; Jeanette M Broering; Teresa M Darragh Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Nov 6-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Ian R White; John B Carlin; Michael Spratt; Patrick Royston; Michael G Kenward; Angela M Wood; James R Carpenter Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-06-29
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; Mona Saraiya; Helen I Meissner; David A Haggstrom; Louise Wideroff; Gigi Yuan; Zahava Berkowitz; William W Davis; Vicki B Benard; Steven S Coughlin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 25.391