Abstract
Background
Pap smear screening is effective in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer. However, some subgroups of women are less likely to be screened than others. Since Canadian provincial health databases do not contain data fields identifying ethnicity or language, analyses employing these variables are typically not available. This paper overcomes this problem by using community- rather than person-based measures. Associations with having had a recent Pap smear are reported by community income, language, ethnic group, and urban/rural status, as well as the woman’s age.
Methods
The provincial Health Card Number and Cytology Registries were linked to ascertain the screening status of women in mainland Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. Postal codes were linked to census enumeration areas and then to Statistics Canada census data to create community-based cultural measures for each woman.
Results
Women in mainland Nova Scotia were more likely to have had a recent Pap smear (Odds Ratio (OR)=1.36; 95% Confidence Interval (CI):1.33-1.39). Women living in low income (OR=1.19;CI:1.15-1.22), Aboriginal (OR=1.60,CI:1.46-1.76), mixed Black (OR=1.25;CI:1.19-1.30) and rural (OR=1.09;CI:1.07-1.11) communities and who were older were less likely to have had a recent Pap smear.
Discussion
These findings were not unexpected. In the United States and elsewhere, associations between Pap screening status and women with low income, rural residence, Aboriginal and Black heritage have been reported using person-based methods. Our findings demonstrate a method of providing measures of ethnicity and language that should be considered for use in Canadian studies of service utilization, disease status, and well-being.
Résumé
Contexte
Le test de Papanicolaou est un moyen efficace de réduire l’incidence du cancer du col utérin. Cependant, certaines catégories de femmes sont moins susceptibles que d’autres de subir un test de dépistage. Comme les bases de données sanitaires des provinces canadiennes ne contiennent pas de champs de données indiquant l’appartenance ethnique ou la langue, nous ne disposons pas en général d’analyses employant de telles variables. Nous avons contourné le problème en utilisant des mesures collectives plutôt qu’individuelles pour déterminer la relation entre le fait d’avoir subi récemment un test de Papanicolaou et le revenu de la collectivité, la langue, le groupe ethnique, le milieu (urbain ou rural) et l’âge de la femme.
Méthode
Nous avons mis en correspondance le numéro de carte Santé et les registres cytologiques provinciaux afin d’établir avec précision la situation des femmes de la NouvelleÉcosse continentale et du cap Breton à l’égard du dépistage. Nous avons relié les codes postaux aux arrondissements de secteurs de dénombrement, puis aux données du recensement de Statistique Canada pour créer des mesures culturelles collectives pour chaque femme.
Résultats
Les femmes de la Nouvelle-Écosse continentale étaient plus susceptibles d’avoir subi récemment un test de Papanicolaou (rapport de cotes [RC]=1,36; intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 %=1,33-1,39). Les femmes vivant dans des collectivités à faible revenu (RC=1,19; IC=1,15-1,22), autochtones (RC=1,60; IC=1,46-1,76), à population noire mixte (RC=1,25; IC=1,19-1,30) et rurales (RC=1,09; IC=1,07-1,11) et qui étaient par ailleurs plus âgées étaient moins susceptibles d’avoir subi récemment un test de Papanicolaou.
Discussion
Nous nous attendions à de tels résultats. Aux États-Unis et ailleurs, les méthodes individuelles ont permis de constater des associations entre la situation à l’égard du dépistage par le test de Papanicolaou et les femmes à faible revenu, vivant en milieu rural et d’ascendance autochtone ou noire. Nos constatations font état d’une méthode de mesure de l’appartenance ethnique et de la langue dont on pourrait envisager l’utilisation dans les études canadiennes sur l’utilisation des services, l’état de santé et le bien-être.
Footnotes
Formerly with the Nova Scotia Cancer Registry which is now SEU
The Population Health Fund of Health Canada provided conceptual leadership and funding for a letters intervention project that enabled this secondary data analysis.
Acknowledgements: The authors acknowledge the contribution of Ron Dewar for case-control analysis; Ralph Jackson for computer systems support; Dr. Robert Grimshaw, Medical Director, Gynaecological Cancer Screening Program, who supported this work; and Maritime Medical Care staff who linked the cytology database to the provincial health card number database and provided the linked data to the authors for analysis.
References
- 1.Health Canada. Cervical Cancer Screening in Canada: 1998 Surveillance Report. Ottawa: Government Services Canada; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Task Force on Cervical Cancer Screening Programs: Cervical cancer screening programs. CMAJ. 1976;114:1003–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Task Force on Cervical Cancer Screening Programs . Cervical cancer screening programs 1982, Health Services and Promotion Branch. Ottawa: Dept. of National Health and Welfare; 1982. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Miller AB, Anderson G, Brisson J, Laidlaw J, LePitre N, Malcomson P, et al. Report of a National Workshop on Screening for Cancer of the Cervix. CMAJ. 1991;145:1301–25. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Johnston G, Dewar R, MacIsaac M, Jackson R, Grimshaw R. Case-control study of cervical cancer screening using population and cancer controls. 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Johnston G, MacIsaac M, Rankin E. A Kit to Enhance the Health and Well-Being of Women through the Development of Tools and State-ofthe-Art Models for Cervical Cancer Screening. 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Johnston G, Boyd C, MacIsaac M, Grimshaw R, Rhodes J. Effectiveness of letters to women who haven’t had a recent Pap smear. Chron Dis Can. 2003;24:49–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Health Canada. Population Health Fund: Interim Guidelines 1997–1998. 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Band PR, Gallagher RP, Threlfall WJ, Hislop TG, Deschamps M, Smith J. Rate of death from cervical cancer among native Indian women in British Columbia. CMAJ. 1992;147:1802–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hislop TG, Deschamps M, Band PR, Smith J, Clarke HF. Participation in the British Columbia cervical cytology screening programme by Native Indian women. Can J Public Health. 1992;83:344–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hislop TG, Clarke HF, Deschamps M, Joseph R, Band PR, Smith J, et al. Cervical cancer screening: How can we improve rates among First Nations women in urban British Columbia? Can Fam Phys. 1996;42:1702–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Young TK, Kliewer E, Blanchard J, Mayer T. Monitoring disease burden and preventive behavior with data linkage: Cervical cancer among aboriginal people in Manitoba, Canada. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:1466–68. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.90.9.1466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Martin JD, Uh SH. A vital statistics system for determining births and mortality in the First Nations population of British Columbia, Canada. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2002;61(2):92–97. doi: 10.3402/ijch.v61i2.17410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Irvine J, Gillis DC, Tan L, Chiu L, Robson D. Lung, breast and cervical cancer incidence and survival in Saskatchewan northerners and registered Indians (1967-86) Arctic Med Res. 1991;90:452–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Gaudette LA, Gao RN, Freitag S, Wideman M. Cancer incidence by ethnic group in the Northwest Territories (NWT) 1969–1988. Health Rep. 1993;5(1):23–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Rosenberg T, Martel S. Cancer trends from 1972–1991 for Registered Indians living on Manitoba Reserves. Int J Circumpolar Health. 1998;57(Suppl1):391–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Sung JF, Blumenthal DS, Coates RJ, Alema-Mensah E. Knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and cancer screening among inner-city African-American women. J Natl Med Assoc. 1997;89:405–11. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Coughlin SS, Uhler RJ, Blackman DK. Breast and cervical cancer screening practices among American Indian and Alaska Native women in the United States, 1992–1997. Prev Med. 1999;29:287–95. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1999.0537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Schiffman MH, Brinton LA, Devesa SS, Fraumeni JF. Cervical cancer. In: Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF, editors. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention. Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Health Canada. Towards a Common Understanding: Clarifying the Core Concepts of Population Health: A Discussion Paper, Appendix 3: Key Determinants of Health. Cat. No. H39-391/1996E ISBN 0-662-25122-9. https://doi.org/www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/phdd/docs/common/appendix_c.html.
- 21.Burge F, Lawson B, Johnston G. Trends in the place of death of cancer patients, 1992–1997. CMAJ. 2003;168(3):265–70. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Mustard CA, Derksen S, Berthelot JM, Wolfson M. Assessing ecologic proxies for household income: A comparison of household and neighbourhood level income measures in the study of population health status. Health Place. 1999;5:157–71. doi: 10.1016/S1353-8292(99)00008-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Anderson RT, Sorlie P, Backlund E, Johnson N, Kaplan GA. Mortality effects of community socioeconomic status. Epidemiology. 1997;8:42–47. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199701000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Statistics Canada. Census Dictionary. 2001. [Google Scholar]