Dataset Information

Effect of Fee on Cervical Cancer Screening Attendance--ScreenFee, a Swedish Population-Based Randomised Trial.

ABSTRACT: Attendance in the cervical cancer screening programme is one of the most important factors to lower the risk of contracting the disease. Attendance rates are often low in areas with low socioeconomic status. Charging a fee for screening might possibly decrease attendance in this population. Screening programme coverage is low in low socio-economic status areas in Gothenburg, Sweden, but has increased slightly after multiple interventions in recent years. For many years, women in the region have paid a fee for screening. We studied the effect of abolishing this fee in a trial emanating from the regular cervical cancer screening programme.Individually randomised controlled trial. All 3 124 women in three low-resource areas in Gothenburg, due for screening during the study period, were randomised to receive an offer of a free test or the standard invitation stating the regular fee of 100 SEK (?11 €). The study was conducted during the first six months of 2013. Attendance was defined as a registered Pap smear within 90 days from the date the invitation was sent out.Attendance did not differ significantly between women who were charged and those offered free screening (RR 0.93; CI 0.85-1.02). No differences were found within the districts or as an effect of age, attendance after the most recent previous invitation or previous experience of smear taking.Abolishment of a modest screening fee in socially disadvantaged urban districts with low coverage, after previous multiple systematic interventions, does not increase attendance in the short term. Other interventions might be more important for increasing attendance in low socio-economic status areas.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02378324.

SUBMITTER: Alfonzo E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4795635 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Fee on Cervical Cancer Screening Attendance--ScreenFee, a Swedish Population-Based Randomised Trial.

Alfonzo Emilia E Andersson Ellström Agneta A Nemes Szilard S Strander Björn B

PloS one 20160317 3

<h4>Background</h4>Attendance in the cervical cancer screening programme is one of the most important factors to lower the risk of contracting the disease. Attendance rates are often low in areas with low socioeconomic status. Charging a fee for screening might possibly decrease attendance in this population. Screening programme coverage is low in low socio-economic status areas in Gothenburg, Sweden, but has increased slightly after multiple interventions in recent years. For many years, women ...[more]

PMID: 26986848

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundScreening participation remains suboptimal in cervical cancer (CC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening despite their effectiveness in reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of an intervention by leveraging the high participation rate in breast cancer (BC) screening as an opportunity to offer self-sampling kits to nonparticipants in CC and CRC screening.Methods and findingsA pragmatic, unblinded, cluster-randomised, multiple period, crossover trial was conducted in 5 BC screening units in the Central Denmark Region (CDR) between September 1, 2021 and May 25, 2022. On each of 100 selected weekdays, 1 BC screening unit was randomly allocated as the intervention unit while the remaining units served as controls. Women aged 50 to 69 years attending BC screening at the intervention unit were offered administrative check-up on their CC screening status (ages 50 to 64 years) and CRC screening status (aged 50 to 69), and women with overdue screening were offered self-sampling. Women in the control group received only standard screening offers according to the organised programmes. The primary outcomes were differences between the intervention group and the control group in the total screening coverage for the 2 programmes and in screening participation among women with overdue screening, measured 6 months after the intervention. These were assessed using intention-to-treat analysis, reporting risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 27,116 women were included in the trial, with 5,618 (20.7%) in the intervention group and 21,498 (79.3%) in the control group. Six months after the intervention, total coverage was higher in the intervention group as compared with the control group in CC screening (88.3 versus 83.5, difference 4.8 percentage points, 95% CI [3.6, 6.0]; p < 0.001) and in CRC screening (79.8 versus 76.0, difference 3.8 percentage points, 95% CI [2.6, 5.1]; p < 0.001). Among women overdue with CC screening, participation in the intervention group was 32.0% compared with 6.1% in the control group (difference 25.8 percentage points, 95% CI [22.0, 29.6]; p < 0.001). In CRC screening, participation among women overdue with screening in the intervention group was 23.8% compared with 8.9% in the control group (difference 14.9 percentage points, 95% CI [12.3, 17.5]; p < 0.001). Women who did not participate in BC screening were not included in this study.ConclusionsOffering self-sampling to women overdue with CC and CRC screening when they attend BC screening was a feasible intervention, resulting in an increase in participation and total coverage. Other interventions are required to reach women who are not participating in BC screening.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05022511. The record of processing activities for research projects in the Central Denmark Region (R. No.: 1-16-02-217-21).

Project description:BackgroundOpportunistic cervical cancer screening can lead to suboptimal screening coverage. Coverage could be increased after a personalised invitation to the target population. We present a community randomized intervention study with three strategies aiming to increase screening coverage.MethodsThe CRICERVA study is a community-based clinical trial to improve coverage of population-based screening in the Cerdanyola SAP area in Barcelona.A total of 32,858 women residing in the study area, aged 30 to 70 years were evaluated. A total of 15,965 women were identified as having no registration of a cervical cytology in the last 3.5 years within the Public Health data base system. Eligible women were assigned to one of four community randomized intervention groups (IGs): (1) (IG1 N = 4197) personalised invitation letter, (2) (IG2 N = 3601) personalised invitation letter + informative leaflet, (3) (IG3 N = 6088) personalised invitation letter + informative leaflet + personalised phone call and (4) (Control N = 2079) based on spontaneous demand of cervical cancer screening as officially recommended. To evaluate screening coverage, we used heterogeneity tests to compare impact of the interventions and mixed logistic regression models to assess the age effect. We refer a "rescue" visit as the screening visit resulting from the study invitation.ResultsAmong the 13,886 women in the IGs, 2,862 were evaluated as having an adequate screening history after the initial contact; 4,263 were lost to follow-up and 5,341 were identified as having insufficient screening and thus being eligible for a rescue visit. All intervention strategies significantly increased participation to screening compared to the control group. Coverage after the intervention reached 84.1% while the control group reached 64.8%. The final impact of our study was an increase of 20% in the three IGs and of 9% in the control group (p<0.001). Within the intervention arms, age was an important determinant of rescue visits showing a statistical interaction with the coverage attained in the IGs. Within the intervention groups, final screening coverage was significantly higher in IG3 (84.4%) (p<0.001). However, the differences were more substantial in the age groups 50-59 and those 60+. The highest impact of the IG3 intervention was observed among women 60+ y.o with 32.0% of them being rescued for screening. The lowest impact of the interventions was in younger women.ConclusionsThe study confirms that using individual contact methods and assigning a fixed screening date notably increases participation in screening. The response to the invitation is strongly dependent on age.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01373723.

Project description:BackgroundAn Organised Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (OCCSP) was started in Poland in 2006/2007. Each woman aged 25 to 59 is eligible for a free Pap test every 3 years in OCCSP. Despite implementation of the OCCSP, the age-standardised cervical cancer (CC) incidence and mortality rates in 2019 were 7.3/100 000 and 3.9/100 000 respectively and were still higher than those in Western European countries with well-organised screening programmes. Apart from low coverage of the OCCSP, suboptimal performance of the screening test (conventional cytology) may be partially responsible for this situation. Several countries have already incorporated high risk Human Papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in CC screening as a more sensitive tool reducing the risk of missing precancerous lesions and allowing for extension of screening intervals. The European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening recommend pilot evaluation of a new screening test in country-specific conditions before its implementation.MethodsThe HIPPO project (HPV testing In Polish POpulation-based cervical cancer screening program) is a randomised health services study nested in the OCCSP in Poland. The project will randomise 33 000 women aged 30-59 years to cytology or hrHPV testing (ratio: 1:1) with age stratification. In the cytology arm women with repeated Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance (ASC-US) or ≥ Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions (LSIL) are referred for colposcopy. In the other arm, hrHPV ( +) women with ≥ ASC-US reflex Liquid-Based Cytology (LBC) are referred for colposcopy. Primary endpoints include detection rates of histologically confirmed high grade intraepithelial lesions or worse (CIN2 +) in each arm.DiscussionThis pilot randomised healthcare study nested in the OCCSP in Poland will assess and compare the performance of hrHPV testing to current standard-cytology in order to make decisions on implementation of HPV-based screening in the country.Trial registrationThis randomised healthcare service study was prospectively registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (identifier: NCT04111835, protocol ID 28/2019) on 19th of September 2019.

Project description:BackgroundCancer-related stigma attracts considerable research interest, but few studies have examined stigmatisation in the healthy population. Qualitative studies suggest that stigma can discourage people from attending cancer screening. We aimed to quantify the prevalence and socio-demographic patterning of cancer stigma in the general population and to explore its association with cancer screening attendance.MethodsIn 2016, 1916 adults aged 18-70?years took part in home-based interviews in England. Measures assessed demographic characteristics, self-reported screening uptake for cervical (n?=?681), breast (n?=?326) and colorectal cancer (n?=?371), and cancer stigma. Cancer stigma was measured with the validated Cancer Stigma Scale which assesses six subdomains (Severity, Personal Responsibility, Awkwardness, Avoidance, Policy Opposition, and Financial Discrimination), from which a mean score was calculated. Logistic regression analyses examined the association between cancer stigma and having been screened as recommended versus not.ResultsLevels of cancer stigma were low, but varied across the six subdomains. Items regarding the severity of a cancer diagnosis attracted the highest levels of agreement (30-51%), followed by statements about the acceptability of making financial decisions on the basis of a cancer diagnosis such as allowing banks to refuse a mortgage (16-31%) and policy opposition statements such as not having a responsibility to provide the best possible care for cancer patients (10-17%). A similar proportion anticipated feeling awkward around someone with cancer (10-17%). Only 8-11% agreed with personal responsibility statements, such as that a person with cancer is to blame for their condition, while 4-5% of adults anticipated avoiding someone with cancer. Stigma was significantly higher in men (p?<?.05) and in those from ethnic minority backgrounds (p?<?.001). Higher cancer stigma was associated with not being screened as recommended for all three screening programmes (cervical: adjusted OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.15-2.20; breast: adjusted OR?=?1.97, 95% CI 1.17-3.32; colorectal: adjusted OR?=?1.59, 95% CI 1.06-2.38).ConclusionsCancer stigma is generally low, but some aspects of stigma are more prevalent than others. Stigma is more prevalent in certain population subgroups and is negatively associated with cancer screening uptake. These benchmark findings may help track and reduce cancer stigma over time.

Dataset Information

Effect of Fee on Cervical Cancer Screening Attendance--ScreenFee, a Swedish Population-Based Randomised Trial.

Publications

Effect of Fee on Cervical Cancer Screening Attendance--ScreenFee, a Swedish Population-Based Randomised Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets