Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

The impact of regional screening policies on the diffusion of cancer screening participation in Belgium: time trends in educational inequalities in Flanders and Wallonia

Authors: Barbara Willems, Piet Bracke

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

We investigate whether the extent of educational inequalities in the use of Pap smears (cervical cancer screening) and mammograms (breast cancer screening) in Belgium has changed over time in accordance with the pattern predicted by diffusion of innovation theory, as well as how the regional cancer screening policies of Flanders and Wallonia influence this pattern.

Methods

Data were obtained from five successive cross-sectional waves (1997–2001–2004-2008-2013) of the Belgian Health Interview Survey. Final sample sizes consisted of 8988 women aged 25–64 years for cervical cancer screening and 4194 women aged 50–69 years for breast cancer screening. We calculated absolute and relative measures of inequality, more specifically, the slope index of inequality (SII) and the relative index of inequality (RII), and their development over time.

Results

In both Flanders and Wallonia, mammogram use increased greatly between 1997 and 2013, while Pap smear use has remained quite stable over time. Educational inequalities in cervical-cancer screening have been largely persistent over time in both regions. In contrast, educational inequalities in breast cancer screening fluctuated more between 1997 and 2013. Between 1997 and 2001, when the breast cancer screening programme was implemented in Flanders, RII reduced significantly by 45%. Inequality measures did not change significantly in Wallonia, where it is known that most women are screened opportunistically outside the programme.

Conclusions

By focussing on Belgium, this study demonstrates that regional variations in the support of a national screening programme can result in regional variations in the pattern of diffusion for cancer screening, as well as to the development of inequalities in cancer screening participation. Moreover, the findings demonstrate that high visibility and awareness of the screening programme, as was more the case in Flanders than it was in Wallonia, are required in order to reduce or eliminate educational inequalities in cancer screening participation over time. General practitioners and gynaecologists can play a decisive role in this regard.
Literature
1.
Coughlin SS, Leadbetter S, Richards T, Sabatino SA. Contextual analysis of breast and cervical cancer screening and factors associated with access among United States women, 2002. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(2):260-75.
2.
Duport N, Ancelle-Park R. Do socio-demographic factors influence mammography use of French women? Analysis of a French cross-sectional survey. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2006;15(3):219-24.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Damiani G, Basso D, Acampora A, Bianchi CBNA, Silvestrini G, Frisicale EM, et al. The impact of level of education on adherence to breast and cervical cancer screening: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2015;81:281–9.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Puddu M, Demarest S, Tafforeau J. Does a national screening programme reduce socioeconomic inequalities in mammography use? Int J Public Health. 2009;54(2):61-68.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Renard F, Demarest S, Van Oyen H, Tafforeau J. Using multiple measures to assess changes in social inequalities for breast cancer screening. Eur J Public Health. 2013;24(2):275–80.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Walsh B, Silles M, O’Neill C. The importance of socio-economic variables in cancer screening participation: a comparison between population-based and opportunistic screening in the EU-15. Health Policy. 2011;101(3):269–76.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Palència L, Espelt A, Rodríguez-Sanz M, Puigpinós R, Pons-Vigués M, Pasarín MI, et al. Socio-economic inequalities in breast and cervical cancer screening practices in Europe: influence of the type of screening program. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(3):757–65.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Dailey AB, Kasl SV, Holford TR, Calvocoressi L, Jones BA. Neighborhood-level socioeconomic predictors of nonadherence to mammography screening guidelines. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomarkers. 2007;16(11):2293–303.CrossRef
9.
Willems B, Bracke P. The education gradient in cancer screening participation: a consistent phenomenon across Europe? Int J Public Health. 2018;63(1):93–103.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Hahm M-I, Park E-C, Choi KS, Lee H-Y, Park J-H, Park S. Inequalities in adoption of cancer screening from a diffusion of innovation perspective: identification of late adopters. Cancer Epidemiol. 2011;35(1):90–6.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Armstrong K, Weiner J, Weber B, Asch DA. Early adoption of BRCA1/2 testing: who and why. Genet Med. 2003;5(2):92–8.PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 2003. p. 551.
14.
Victora CG, Vaughan JP, Barros FC, Silva AC, Tomasi E. Explaining trends in inequities: evidence from Brazilian child health studies. Lancet. 2000;356(9235):1093–8.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Jusot F, Or Z, Sirven N. Variations in preventive care utilisation in Europe. Eur J Ageing. 2012;9(1):15–25.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Damiani G, Federico B, Basso D, Ronconi A, Bianchi CBNA, Anzellotti GM, et al. Socioeconomic disparities in the uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening in Italy: a cross sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):99.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Sabates R, Feinstein L. The role of education in the uptake of preventative health care: the case of cervical screening in Britain. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(12):2998–3010.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Levy-Storms L, Wallace SP. Use of mammography screening among older Samoan women in Los Angeles county: a diffusion network approach. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(6):987–1000.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Rutten LJF, Nelson DE, Meissner HI. Examination of population-wide trends in barriers to cancer screening from a diffusion of innovation perspective (1987–2000). Prev Med. 2004;38(3):258–68.CrossRef
20.
Espinas JA, Aliste L, Fernandez E, Argimon JM, Tresserras R, Borras JM. Narrowing the equity gap: the impact of organized versus opportunistic cancer screening in Catalonia (Spain). J Med Screen. 2011;18(2):87–90.PubMedCrossRef
21.
IARC. Cervix cancer screening. Cancer IAfRo. Lyon: IARC Press; 2005.
22.
IARC. Breast cancer screening. IARC Hanbooks of Cancer prevention, volume 7. Lyon: IARC Press; 2002.
23.
Oven HV, Verellen W. Breast cancer screening in the Flemish region, Belgium. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1994;3(1):7–12.CrossRef
24.
Van Steen A, Van Tiggelen R. Short history of mammography: a Belgian perspective. JBR BTR. 2007;90(3):151.PubMed
25.
Vankrunkelsven P, Kellen E, Lousbergh D, Cloes E, De Beeck LO, Faes C, et al. Reduction in hormone replacement therapy use and declining breast cancer incidence in the Belgian province of Limburg. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;118(2):425.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Goossens M, Van Hal G, Van der Burg M, Kellen E, Van Herck K, De Grève J, et al. Quantifying independent risk factors for failing to rescreen in a breast cancer screening program in Flanders, Belgium. Prev Med. 2014;69(Supplement C):280–6.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Vrijens F, Renard F, Camberlin C, Desomer A, Dubois C, Jonckheer P, et al. Performance of the Belgian Health System - Report 2015 - Supplement. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2016. Contract No.: D/2016/10.273/04
28.
Council recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening. Off J Eur Union. 2003;878:34–8.
29.
30.
Arbyn M, Rebolj M, De Kok IM, Fender M, Becker N, O’Reilly M, et al. The challenges of organising cervical screening programmes in the 15 old member states of the European Union. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(15):2671–8.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Paulus D, Mambourg F, Bonneux L. Borstkankerscreening. Brussel: Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg (KCE); 2005. Contract No.: D/2005/10.273/05
32.
Miles A, Cockburn J, Smith RA, Wardle J. A perspective from countries using organized screening programs. Cancer. 2004;101(S5):1201–13.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Nieminen P, Kallio M, Anttila A, Hakama M. Organised versus spontaneous pap-smear screening for cervical cancer, a case control study. Int J Cancer. 1999;83:55–8.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Arbyn M, Fabri V, Temmerman M, Simoens C. Attendance at cervical Cancer screening and use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures on the uterine cervix assessed from individual health insurance data (Belgium, 2002-2006). PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e92615.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Van Eycken L. Cancer burden in Belgium 2004–2013. Belgian Cancer Registry: Brussels; 2015.
36.
Demarest S, Van der Heyden J, Charafeddine R, Drieskens S, Gisle L, Tafforeau J. Methodological basics and evolution of the Belgian health interview survey 1997–2008. Arch Public Health. 2013;71(1):24.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
UNESCO. International standard classification of education: ISCED 2011. Montreal: UIS; 2012.
38.
Wübker A. Who gets a mammogram amongst European women aged 50-69 years? Heal Econ Rev. 2012;2(1):6.CrossRef
39.
Deutekom M, van Rijn AF, Dekker E, Blaauwgeers H, Stronks K, Fockens P, et al. Uptake of faecal occult blood test colorectal cancer screening by different ethnic groups in the Netherlands. Eur J Pub Health. 2009;19(4):400–2.CrossRef
40.
Menck HRM, K P. The influence of urbanization, age, ethnicity, and income on the early diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2001;92(5):1299–304.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Gimeno García AZ. Factors influencing colorectal Cancer screening participation. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012;2012:8.CrossRef
42.
Sutton S, Bickler G, Sancho Aldridge J, Saidi G. Prospective study of predictors of attendance for breast screening in inner London. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1994;48(1):65-73.CrossRef
43.
Ernstsen L, Strand BH, Nilsen SM, Espnes GA, Krokstad S. Trends in absolute and relative educational inequalities in four modifiable ischaemic heart disease risk factors: repeated cross-sectional surveys from the Nord-Trøndelag health study (HUNT) 1984–2008. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):266.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Mackenbach JP, Kunst AE. Measuring the magnitude of socio-economic inequalities in health: an overview of available measures illustrated with two examples from Europe. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(6):757–71.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Zou G. A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(7):702–6.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Kroll LE. RIIGEN: Stata module to generate Variables to Compute the Relative Index of Inequality. Statistical Software Components. Boston College Department of Economics 2013.
47.
48.
Lee JT, Huang Z, Basu S, Millett C. The inverse equity hypothesis: does it apply to coverage of cancer screening in middle-income countries? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(2):149–55.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Gotzsche PC, Hartling OJ, Nielsen M, Brodersen J, Jorgensen KJ. Breast screening: the facts--or maybe not. BMJ. 2009;338(b86).PubMedCrossRef
50.
Miller D, Livingstone V, Herbison GP. Interventions for relieving the pain and discomfort of screening mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; (1). Art. No.: CD002942.
51.
52.
Youlden DR, Cramb SM, Dunn NA, Muller JM, Pyke CM, Baade PD. The descriptive epidemiology of female breast cancer: an international comparison of screening, incidence, survival and mortality. Cancer Epidemiol. 2012;36(3):237–48.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Hakama M, Coleman MP, Alexe D-M, Auvinen A. Cancer screening: evidence and practice in Europe 2008. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(10):1404–13.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Schopper D, de Wolf C. How effective are breast cancer screening programmes by mammography? Review of the current evidence. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(11):1916–23.PubMedCrossRef
55.
WIV-ISP. Rapport 5: Preventie. Samenvatting van de onderzoeksresultaten. Brussel: Wetenschappelijk Instituut Volksgezondheid; 2015. Contract No.: D/2015/2505/26
56.
Han PK, Reeve BB, Moser RP, Klein WM. Aversion to ambiguity regarding medical tests and treatments: measurement, prevalence, and relationship to sociodemographic factors. J Health Commun. 2009;14(6):556–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
Han PK, Kobrin SC, Klein WM, Davis WW, Stefanek M, Taplin SH. Perceived ambiguity about screening mammography recommendations: association with future mammography uptake and perceptions. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomarkers. 2007;16(3):458–66.CrossRef
58.
Han PKJ, Moser RP, Klein WMP. Perceived ambiguity about Cancer prevention recommendations: relationship to perceptions of Cancer preventability, risk, and worry. J Health Commun. 2006;11(sup001):51–69.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
Rimer BK, Halabi S, Strigo TS, Crawford Y, Lipkus IM. Confusion about mammography: prevalence and consequences. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 1999;8(4):509–20.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Han PKJ, Moser RP, Klein WMP, Beckjord EB, Dunlavy AC, Hesse BW. Predictors of perceived ambiguity about Cancer prevention recommendations: sociodemographic factors and mass media exposures. Health Commun. 2009;24(8):764–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
61.
Mirowsky J, Ross CE. Education, learned effectiveness and health. Lond Rev Educ. 2005;3(3):205–20.CrossRef
62.
van Agt H, Fracheboud J, van der Steen A, de Koning H. Do women make an informed choice about participating in breast cancer screening? A survey among women invited for a first mammography screening examination. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;89(2):353–9.PubMedCrossRef
63.
64.
Silles MA. The causal effect of education on health: evidence from the United Kingdom. Econ Educ Rev. 2009;28(1):122–8.CrossRef
65.
Chandola T, Bartley M, Sacker A, Jenkinson C, Marmot M. Health selection in the Whitehall II study, UK. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(10):2059–72.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Furnée CA, Groot W, van Den Brink HM. The health effects of education: a meta-analysis. Eur J Public Health. 2008;18(4):417–21.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The impact of regional screening policies on the diffusion of cancer screening participation in Belgium: time trends in educational inequalities in Flanders and Wallonia
Authors
Barbara Willems
Piet Bracke
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3746-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Health Services Research 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

The financial transaction between counseling and nursing care service centers (CNCSCs) and their clients: a qualitative study

Research article

New recommendation and coverage of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening: uptake has increased but is still low

Research article

Assessing the policy and practice impact of an international policy initiative: the State of the World’s Midwifery 2014

Research article

Challenges and opportunities of integration of community based Management of Acute Malnutrition into the government health system in Bangladesh: a qualitative study

Research article

Budget impact analysis of the use of extended half-life recombinant factor VIII (efmoroctocog alfa) for the treatment of congenital haemophilia a: the Italian National Health System perspective

Research article

General Practitioners' recommendations of self-directed-exercises for musculoskeletal problems and perceived barriers and facilitators to doing so: a mixed methods study