Cent Eur J Public Health 2015, 23(4):360-364 | DOI: 10.21101/cejph.a4068

Survey of Participation in Organised Cervical Cancer-Screening Programme in Hungary

Anikó Gyulai1, Attila Nagy2, Vera Pataki3, Dóra Tonté2, Róza Ádány2, Zoltán Vokó2
1 Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health, Medical and Health Science Centre, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
2 Department of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Public Health, Medical and Health Science Centre, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
3 GlaxoSmithKline Hungary, Budapest, Hungary

Aim: Cervical cancer mortality is high in Hungary, with more than 400 deaths per annum. In 2003, a national cervical cancer screening programme was launched to provide screening services for women who otherwise would not use services themselves. The aim of this survey was to study the socioeconomic and lifestyle factors related to participation in the organised cervical cancer screening programme.

Methods: A questionnaire-based health survey was conducted using a representative sample of women from 25-65 years of age in 11 Hungarian counties. A logistic regression analysis was used to study the association between participation in the screening programme and socioeconomic and lifestyle factors.

Results: 74% (95% CI: 70-77%) of the target population underwent a screening examination within the previous three years. Only 15% (95% CI: 5-35%) of the women, who received an invitation letter and took part in the organised screening programme, had never been previously examined by gynaecologist. The participation rates decreased significantly (p<0.05) for those subjects aged >44 years, retired, participants with low income, living in small settlements, and reported to be heavy smokers.

Conclusion: Although the overall proportion of Hungary's population that undergoes regular screening for cervical cancer is not low, the organised national cancer screening programme was ineffective in engaging women not regularly visiting their gynaecologist for examination.

Klíčová slova: cervical cancer screening, socioeconomic factors, Hungary

Vloženo: 27. srpen 2014; Revidováno: 7. prosinec 2015; Přijato: 7. prosinec 2015; Zveřejněno: 30. prosinec 2015  Zobrazit citaci

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Gyulai A, Nagy A, Pataki V, Tonté D, Ádány R, Vokó Z. Survey of Participation in Organised Cervical Cancer-Screening Programme in Hungary. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2015;23(4):360-364. doi: 10.21101/cejph.a4068. PubMed PMID: 26841151.
Sdílet...
Stáhnout citaci
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Zobrazit celý článek

    Reference

    1. Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Demographic yearbook 2012. Budapest: Hungarian Central Statistical Office; 2013.
    2. Döbrössy L. Five decades of cervical cancer screening in Hungary. Nögyógyászati Onkológia. 2007;12(1):5-9. (In Hungarian.)
    3. Kovacs A, Döbrössy L, Budai A, Boncz I, Cornides A. The state of organized cervical screening program in Hungary in 2006. Orv Hetil. 2007 Mar 25;148(12):535-40. (In Hungarian.) Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
    4. Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J, Ronco G, Schenck U, Segnan N, et al. editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. 2nd ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2008.
    5. IARCWorking Group on Cervical Cancer Screening and the UICC Project Group on the Evaluation of Screening Programmes for Cancer. Screening for cancer of the uterine cervix. IARC Sci Publ. 1986;(76):1-315.
    6. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Cervix cancer screening. IARC/WHO Handbooks of cancer prevention, vol. 10. Lyon: IARC; 2005.
    7. Boncz I, Sebestyén A, Döbrössy L, Kovács A, Budai A, Székely T. The coverage of cervical screening in Hungary. Orv Hetil. 2007 Nov 18;148(46):2177-82. (In Hungarian.) Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
    8. Kovács A, Boncz I. The state of the organized oncological screening in Hungary. Népegészségügy. 2009;87(4):265-74. (In Hungarian.)
    9. Akers AY, Newmann SJ, Smith JS. Factors underlying disparities in cervical cancer incidence, screening, and treatment in the United States. Curr Probl Cancer. 2007 May-Jun;31(3):157-81. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
    10. Széles G, Vokó Z, Jenei T, Kardos L, Pocsai Z, Bajtay A, et al. A preliminary evaluation of a health monitoring programme in Hungary. Eur J Public Health. 2005 Feb;15(1):26-32. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
    11. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 8.2. College Station: StataCorp; 2003.
    12. von Karsa L, Anttila A, Ronco G, Ponti A, Malila N, Arbyn M. Cancer screening in the European Union: report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on cancer screening. First Report. Luxembourg: European Communities; 2008.
    13. Holland WW, Stewart S, Masseria C. Policy brief screening in Europe. Geneva: WHO; 2006.
    14. AnttilaA, Ronco G, Clifford G, Bray F, Hakama M,Arbyn M, et al. Cervical cancer screening programmes and policies in 18 European countries. Br J Cancer. 2004 Aug 31;91(5):935-41. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
    15. Arbyn M, Quataert P, Van Hal G, Van Oyen H. Cervical cancer screening in the Flemish region (Belgium): measurement of the attendance rate by telephone interview. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1997 Aug;6(4):389-98. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
    16. Garner EI. Cervical cancer: disparities in screening, treatment, and survival. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003 Mar;12(3):242-7.
    17. Kovács A, Döbrössy L, Budai A, Boncz I, Cornides A. Cervical screening in Hungary: why does the "English model" work but the "Hungarian model" does not? Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2008;29(1):5-9. Přejít na PubMed...
    18. Anttila A, Ronco G; Working Group on the Registration and Monitoring of Cervical Cancer Screening Programmes in the European Union; within the European Network for Information on Cancer (EUNICE). Description of the national situation of cervical cancer screening in the member states of the European Union. Eur J Cancer. 2009 Oct;45(15):2685-708. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
    19. 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 Jun;39(3):757-65. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
    20. Döbrössy L, editor. Organized oncology screening programs: a quality assurance handbook and methodological guideline. Budapest: Egészségügyi Minisztérium; 2000. (In Hungarian.)
    21. Giordano L, Webster P, Anthony C, Szarewski A, Davies P, Arbyn M, et al. Improving the quality of communication in organised cervical cancer screening programmes. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Jul;72(1):130-6. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
    22. Weller DP, Campbell C. Uptake in cancer screening programmes: a priority in cancer control. Br J Cancer. 2009 Dec 3;101 Suppl 2:S55-9. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
    23. Weller DP, Patnick J, McIntosh HM, Dietrich AJ. Uptake in cancer screening programmes. Lancet Oncol. 2009 Jul;10(7):693-9. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
    24. Baron RC, Rimer BK, Coates RJ, Kerner J, Kalra GP, Melillo S, et al.; Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Client-directed interventions to increase community access to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2008 Jul;35(1 Suppl):S56-66. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
    25. Spadea T, Bellini S, Kunst A, Stirbu I, Costa G. The impact of interventions to improve attendance in female cancer screening among lower socioeconomic groups: a review. Prev Med. 2010 Apr;50(4):159-64. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...

    Zpět na obsah