Social and territorial inequalities in breast and cervical cancers screening uptake: a cross-sectional study in France.

Lisa Ouanhnon, Marie-Eve Roug�� Bugat, Sebastien Lamy, Vladimir Druel, Cyrille Delpierre, Pascale Grosclaude
Author Information
  1. Lisa Ouanhnon: DUMG (D��partement Universitaire de M��decine G��n��rale), Universit�� Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France lisa.ouanhnon@gmail.com. ORCID
  2. Marie-Eve Roug�� Bugat: DUMG (D��partement Universitaire de M��decine G��n��rale), Universit�� Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
  3. Sebastien Lamy: CERPOP, INSERM UMR_S 1027, Toulouse, France.
  4. Vladimir Druel: DUMG (D��partement Universitaire de M��decine G��n��rale), Universit�� Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
  5. Cyrille Delpierre: CERPOP, INSERM UMR_S 1027, Toulouse, France.
  6. Pascale Grosclaude: CERPOP, INSERM UMR_S 1027, Toulouse, France.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the impact of socio-territorial characteristics on mammography and pap smear uptake according to the place of residence in the recommended age groups, and second outside the recommended age groups.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We used an existing dataset of 1 027 039 women which combines data from the Health Insurance information systems, with census data from Midi-Pyr��n��es, France.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Our outcome was, for each woman, the uptake of the pap smear and the uptake of the mammography during the year.
RESULTS: A social gradient of screening uptake was found in the recommended age groups. This gradient was stronger in large urban areas:(1) For mammography: decile 10 (the most deprived) vs 1 (the least deprived), adjusted OR 0.777, 95% CI (0.748 to 0.808) in large urban area; adjusted OR= 0.808 for decile 1 to 0.726 for decile 10 in other areas vs decile 1 in urban areas;(2) For pap smear: decile 10 vs 1 adjusted OR 0.66, 95%CI (0.642 to 0.679) in large urban areas; adjusted OR= 0.747 for decile 1 to 0.562 for decile 10 in other areas vs decile 1 in urban areas).Screening rates were globally higher in large urban areas.For mammography, the social and territorial disparities were higher outside the recommended age group.
CONCLUSIONS: Offering a universal approach to every woman, as it is often the case in nationally organised screening programmes, is likely to be insufficient to ensure real equity in access. Developing global dataset combining health data and diverse socioeconomic data, at individual and contextual levels, could enable a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in this social gradient, and therefore, the development of targeted territorial actions to improve equity of access to healthcare.

Keywords

References

  1. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 Nov;16(11):2293-303 [PMID: 18006918]
  2. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2020 Sep;29(5):458-465 [PMID: 32740172]
  3. Rural Remote Health. 2014;14(2):2730 [PMID: 24953122]
  4. Prev Med. 2012 Mar-Apr;54(3-4):259-65 [PMID: 22296836]
  5. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008 Nov;17(9):1477-98 [PMID: 18954237]
  6. Prev Med. 2014 Jun;63:103-8 [PMID: 24345603]
  7. Cancer Epidemiol. 2019 Jun;60:149-155 [PMID: 31015096]
  8. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 May 11;(5):CD002834 [PMID: 21563135]
  9. Bull World Health Organ. 2013 Aug 1;91(8):546-546A [PMID: 23940398]
  10. Curr Opin Psychol. 2015 Oct;5:78-84 [PMID: 26213711]
  11. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1999 Oct;8(5):427-34 [PMID: 10548398]
  12. Soc Work Public Health. 2017;32(5):311-323 [PMID: 28409674]
  13. J Clin Nurs. 2020 Feb;29(3-4):393-415 [PMID: 31713934]
  14. CMAJ. 1996 May 1;154(9):1335-43 [PMID: 8616736]
  15. Bull Cancer. 2015 Feb;102(2):126-38 [PMID: 25636359]
  16. BMJ Open. 2015 Jul 24;5(7):e007735 [PMID: 26209119]
  17. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2008 Oct;56(5):303-13 [PMID: 18951740]
  18. Sante Publique. 2015 May-Jun;27(3):383-94 [PMID: 26414140]
  19. Health Care Anal. 2008 Mar;16(1):17-30 [PMID: 18240023]
  20. J Rural Health. 2019 Mar;35(2):229-235 [PMID: 29888497]
  21. J Med Screen. 2016 Jun;23(2):98-103 [PMID: 26377810]
  22. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012 Nov;66(11):982-9 [PMID: 22544918]
  23. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2015 Jun;24 Suppl:S77-81 [PMID: 26016792]
  24. J Med Screen. 2009;16(4):193-8 [PMID: 20054094]
  25. Prev Med. 2018 Oct;115:53-60 [PMID: 30099047]
  26. Soc Sci Res. 2019 Jul;81:157-169 [PMID: 31130194]
  27. Rev Prat. 2013 Dec;63(10):1369-77 [PMID: 24579331]
  28. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011 Nov;20(11):2331-44 [PMID: 21914839]
  29. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 May;69(3):184-210 [PMID: 30875085]

MeSH Term

Breast Neoplasms
Cross-Sectional Studies
Early Detection of Cancer
Female
Humans
Mammography
Mass Screening
Papanicolaou Test
Socioeconomic Factors
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
Vaginal Smears

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.001decileurbanareasuptakerecommendedagedatasociallarge10vsadjustedmedicinemammographypapgroupsgradientscreeningterritorialhealthcross-sectionalstudysmearoutsideANDdatasetFrancewomandeprivedOR808OR=higherequityaccessOBJECTIVE:objectiveinvestigateimpactsocio-territorialcharacteristicsaccordingplaceresidencesecondSETTINGPARTICIPANTS:usedexisting027039womencombinesHealthInsuranceinformationsystemscensusMidi-Pyr��n��esPRIMARYSECONDARYOUTCOMEMEASURES:outcomeyearRESULTS:foundstrongerareas:mammography:least77795%CI748area7262smear:6695%CI642679747562ScreeningratesgloballyFordisparitiesgroupCONCLUSIONS:OfferinguniversalapproacheveryoftencasenationallyorganisedprogrammeslikelyinsufficientensurerealDevelopingglobalcombiningdiversesocioeconomicindividualcontextuallevelsenablebetterunderstandingmechanismsinvolvedthereforedevelopmenttargetedactionsimprovehealthcareSocialinequalitiesbreastcervicalcancersuptake:generalseeinternalgynaecologicaloncologypolicyorganisationservicespreventive

Similar Articles

Cited By