Characteristics of Subgroups of Attenders and Non-Attenders in an Organised Screening Programme for Cervical Cancer

1996 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Peter Skovgaard Larsen ◽  
Frede Olesen

Objective –Several studies have compared attenders and non-attenders in organised cervical screening programmes but few have analysed subgroups of at-tenders and non-attenders. This study presents social and other characteristics of such subgroups. Setting—Aarhus County, Denmark. Methods –A case-control study in a cohort of 133 500 women, aged 23–60, included in the programme from 1 October 1990 to 1 April 1994. The participation rate was 75%, and those taking part comprised women with opportunistic screening or who had had a smear owing to symptoms in the previous three years (“active” attenders), and women who were invited for screening because they had not been otherwise tested (“passive” attenders). “Passive” (n = 708) and “active” attenders (n = 692) were compared. Women who had never had a smear test (“never” attenders, n = 287) were then compared with “ever” attenders (n = 1215)—that is, women who had not had a smear test during the previous 42 months, but had had at least one previous test. Data were collected by mailed questionnaires. Results –The response rate was 81% and 53% for attenders and non-attenders, respectively. After correction for age, there was no difference between the “active” and “passive” attenders for cancer risk factors (smoking, age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners, and social group), or in the degree of responsibility for close relatives, but “active” attenders seemed to have more frequent contact with their general practitioner. “Never” attenders had less frequent contact with their general practitioner than “ever” attenders. They were more often living alone and nullipara, but had no overrepresentation of cancer risk factors. Conclusions –Increased effect cannot be obtained by focusing on the described groups, but by increasing the participation rate. “Never” attenders do not belong to a special risk group.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6563-6563
Author(s):  
Jean F. Morere ◽  
Jérôme Viguier ◽  
Xavier B. Pivot ◽  
Jean-Yves Blay ◽  
Yvan Coscas ◽  
...  

6563 Background: One goal of the current French National Cancer Plan is to reduce health inequities in cancer control. In the present work, an underprivileged population was explored to analyze exposure to cancer risk factors and cancer screening attendance in order to highlight ways to improve cancer control. Methods: Within the nationwide observational study EDIFICE 3, conducted by phone interviews among a representative sample of 1603 subjects aged between 40 and 75 years old, we used the “EPICES” validated questionnaire to examine the association of underserved status with cancer risk factors, beliefs, and health care access. Results: Based on EPICES score, underserved subjects represent 33% of the sample. These subjects subjectively perceive a higher risk of cancer compared to non-underserved subjects (21% vs 14% respectively, p<0.01). They more often consider that the cancer always has an external cause (18% vs 12%, p<0.01), rely less on information from the general practitioner (48% vs 56%, p<0.01) and lay press (28% vs 37%, p<0.05). They trust the national health system less (average score from 1 to 10; 6.0 vs 6.3, p <0.05). They also have more cancer risk factors: BMI (26.0 vs 24.8, p<0.01), active smoking (38% vs 23%, p<0.01) and less practicing sport (42% vs 77%, p<0.01). They have more comorbidities: average (2.2 vs 1.8, p<0.01), at least one (76% vs 65%, p<0.01), anxiety (27% vs 12%, p<0.01), hypertension (24% vs 19%, p<0.05) and cardiovascular disease (13% vs 9%, p<0.05). Among persons with a cancer, underserved subjects have a higher rate of lung cancer (10% of cancers vs 1%, p<0.05). However, no difference in cancer screening attendance was observed between underserved and non-underserved subjects: colorectal cancer (60% vs 60%); breast cancer (94% vs 97%) and prostate cancer (46% vs 52%). Access to healthcare is not an issue (consultations with a general practitioner more frequent for underserved group: 5.4 vs 3.7 per year, p<0.01). Conclusions: To reduce inequities in cancer control, as screening attendance is not discriminating, the effort for upstream interventions should be focused on prevention. Cancer risk factors such as smoking, overweight and a sedentary life style are appropriate targets for communication campaigns.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Tufman ◽  
S Schneiderbauer ◽  
D Kauffmann-Guerrero ◽  
F Manapov ◽  
C Schneider ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Mark Natanson

Colon and rectal cancers are usually combined under the same term "colorectal cancer". It should be noted that the lesion of the colon is much more common. Colorectal cancer ranks fourth in the overall structure of oncological pathology in terms of prevalence, and in some countries even comes third after lung and stomach cancer. Risk factors that contribute to the development of colorectal cancer include bowel polyps, ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, and a genetic predisposition. Most often, neoplastic transformation occurs at the site of an adenoma or dysplastic lesion of the intestinal mucosa. Due to the high risk of neoplastic process in a sufficiently large number of elderly people, it is recommended that every person over the age of 50 should undergo compulsory screening to detect latent cancer. The simplest, but at the same time insufficiently informative method is a blood culture test - analysis for the presence of blood in the feces. Method of total colonoscopy and double-contrast radiography is distinguished by a higher information content, but at the same time a higher cost. It is recommended to have these examinations every three to five years after the age of 50 years without clinical manifestations, and after the age of 40 for those at risk for colorectal cancer.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document