Socio-demographic characteristics of participation in the opportunistic German cervical cancer screening programme: results from the EPIC-Heidelberg cohort

  • David Seidel
  • Nikolaus Becker
  • Sabine Rohrmann
  • Katharina Nimptsch
  • Jakob Linseisen
Original Paper

Abstract

Objective

To analyse participation in the German cervical cancer screening programme by socio-demographic characteristics.

Methods

In the EPIC-Heidelberg cohort study 13,612 women aged 35–65 years were recruited between 1994 and 1998. Follow-up questionnaires were used to analyse participation in cervical cancer screening. Subjects were categorised according to age (birth cohort), education, vocational training, employment status, marital status and household size. Associations between socio-demographic characteristics and participation in cervical cancer screening were analysed using multinomial logistic regression.

Results

Females of the oldest and middle birth cohort were less likely to be screened compared to the youngest birth cohort. Less-educated women and those with a low-level secondary school degree had a decreased likelihood of undergoing screening in comparison to better educated women. Married women and women living in households with four or more persons were more likely to participate in the screening programme than single women or women living alone. Employment status did not modify participation in cervical cancer screening.

Conclusions

Knowledge on the characteristics of women with a lower attendance to cervical cancer screening could be used to improve the effectiveness of the current (opportunistic) programme by dedicated health promotion programmes. However, an organized screening programme with written invitation of all eligible women would be the preferred option.

Keywords

Cervical cancer Screening Socio-demographic characteristics EPIC-Heidelberg Germany 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all women of the EPIC-Heidelberg cohort study for providing the information used for the present study.

References

  1. Andrykowski MA, Zhang M, Pavlik EJB, Kryscio RJ (2007) Factors associated with return for routine annual screening in an ovarian cancer screening program. Gynecol Oncol 104:695–701. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.10.044 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anttila A, Nieminen P (2000) Cervical cancer screening programme in Finland. Eur J Cancer 36:2209–2214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker N (2003) Epidemiological aspects of cancer screening in Germany. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 129:691–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker N, Wahrendorf J (1998) Atlas of Cancer Mortality in Germany 1981–1990, 3rd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Boeing H, Korfmann A, MM Bergmann, Recruitment procedures of EPIC-Germany (1999a) European Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Ann Nutr Metab 43:205–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boeing H, Wahrendorf J, Becker N (1999b) EPIC-Germany—a source for studies into diet and risk of chronic diseases. Ann Nutr Metab 43:195–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coughlin SS, King J, Richards TB, Ekwueme DU (2006) Cervical cancer screening among women in metropolitan areas of the United States by individual-level and area-based measures of socioeconomic status, 2000 to 2002. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:2154–2159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doll R, Payne P, Waterhouse J (1966) Cancer incidence in five continents. A technical report. International Union Against Cancer. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening, 2nd edn. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon NP, Hiatt RA, Lampert DI (1993) Concordance of self-reported data and medical record audit for six cancer screening procedures. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:566–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hakama M, Miller AB, Day NE (1986). Screening for cancer of the uterine cervix. IARC Scientific Publications No. 76. IARC, LyonGoogle Scholar
  12. IARC (2005) Cervic cancer screening. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention, vol 10. International Agency for Research on Cancer, LyonGoogle Scholar
  13. Klug SJ, Hetzer M, Blettner M (2005) Screening for breast and cervical cancer in a large German city: participation, motivation and knowl edge of risk factors. Eur J Public Health 15:70–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rebolj M, van Ballegooijen M, Berkers L-M, Habbema D (2006) Monitoring a national cancer prevention program: successful changes in cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands. Int J Cancer 120:806–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Riboli E, Kaaks R (1997) The Epic project: rationale and study design. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Int J Epidemiol 26:6–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Riboli E, Hunt KJ, Slimani N, Ferrari P, Norat T, Fahey M, Charrondiere UR et al (2002) European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): study populations and data collection. Public Health Nutr 5:1113–1124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. RKI (Robert-Koch-Institute), GEKID (Society of the epidemiological cancer registries in Germany) (2008) Cancer in Germany 2003–2004 (in German). 6. revised version, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. Rodvall Y, Kemetli L, Tishelman C, Törnberg S (2005) Factors related to participation in a cervical cancer screening programme in urban Sweden. Eur J Cancer Prev 14:459–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scheffer S, Dauven S, Sieverding M (2006) Sociodemographic differences in the participation in “early detection of cancer examinations” in Germany—a review. Gesundheitswesen 68:139–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schenck U, von Karsa L (2000) Cervical cancer screening in Germany. Eur J Cancer 36:2221–2226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Taylor RJ, Mamoon HA, Morrell SL, Wain GV (2001) Cervical screening by socio-economic status in Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health 25:256–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Seidel
    • 1
  • Nikolaus Becker
    • 1
  • Sabine Rohrmann
    • 1
  • Katharina Nimptsch
    • 1
  • Jakob Linseisen
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Cancer EpidemiologyGerman Cancer Research CenterHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations