Social inequalities in cervical cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment among French general practitioners and gynaecologists
Open Access
- 27 July 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in BMC Health Services Research
- Vol. 20 (1), 1-10
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05479-w
Abstract
Cervical cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality due to uterine cervical cancer (UCC). However, inequalities in participation in UCC screening exist, especially according to age and social status. Considering the current situation in France regarding the ongoing organized UCC screening campaign, we aimed to assess general practitioners’ (GPs) and gynaecologists’ preferences for actions designed to reduce screening inequalities. French physicians’ preferences to UCC screening modalities was assessed using a discrete choice experiment. A national cross-sectional questionnaire was sent between September and October 2014 to 500 randomly selected physicians, and numerically to all targeted physicians working in the French region Midi-Pyrénées. Practitioners were offered 11 binary choices of organized screening scenarios in order to reduce inequalities in UCC screening participation. Each scenario was based on five attributes corresponding to five ways to enhance participation in UCC screening while reducing screening inequalities. Among the 123 respondents included, practitioners voted for additional interventions targeting non-screened women overall (p < 0.05), including centralized invitations sent from a central authority and involving the mentioned attending physician, or providing attending physicians with the lists of unscreened women among their patients. However, they rejected the specific targeting of women over 50 years old (p < 0.01) or living in deprived areas (p < 0.05). Only GPs were in favour of allowing nurses to perform Pap smears, but both GPs and gynaecologists rejected self-collected oncogenic papillomavirus testing. French practitioners tended to value the traditional principle of universalism. As well as rejecting self-collected oncogenic papillomavirus testing, their reluctance to support the principle of proportionate universalism relying on additional interventions addressing differences in socioeconomic status needs further evaluation. As these two concepts have already been recommended as secondary development leads for the French national organized screening campaign currently being implemented, the adherence of practitioners and the adaptation of these concepts are necessary conditions for reducing inequalities in health care.Keywords
Funding Information
- Institut National Du Cancer (2011-118)
This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit:
- Methods to increase participation in organised screening programs: a systematic reviewBMC Public Health, 2013
- Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries in 2012European Journal of Cancer, 2013
- Does removal of out‐of‐pocket costs for cervical and breast cancer screening work? A quasi‐experimental study to evaluate the impact on attendance, attendance inequality and average cost per uptake of a Japanese government interventionInternational Journal of Cancer, 2013
- Screening and cervical cancer cure: population based cohort studyBMJ, 2012
- Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screeningEmergencias, 2011
- Interventions that increase use of Pap tests among ethnic minority women: a meta‐analysisPsycho‐Oncology, 2011
- Evaluating societal preferences for human papillomavirus vaccine and cervical smear test screening programmeSexually Transmitted Infections, 2010
- Socio-economic inequalities in breast and cervical cancer screening practices in Europe: influence of the type of screening programInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2010
- Socioeconomic determinants for compliance to colorectal cancer screening. A multilevel analysisJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2009
- Attendance to Cervical Cancer Screening in Family Practices in The NetherlandsPreventive Medicine, 2000