Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The determinants of cervical cancer screening uptake in women with obesity: application of the Andersen’s behavioral model to the CONSTANCES survey

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Despite their higher risk for and mortality from cervical cancer, evidence indicates low rates of cervical cancer screening (CCS) among women with obesity. The literature on the specific factors related to CCS nonadherence in this population is limited.

Methods

We examined the data on 2,934 women with obesity included in the CONSTANCES survey from 2012 to 2015. Using the Andersen’s behavioral model, we studied the relationships between the socioeconomic, sociodemographic, health, health personal behaviors, and healthcare use-related factors with CCS nonadherence. The analysis was performed using structural equation models.

Results

Regular follow-up by a gynecologist, good quality of primary care follow-up, and comorbidities were negatively associated with CCS nonadherence. Limited literacy, older age, being single, living without children, and financial strain were positively associated with CCS nonadherence. Our results do not point to competitive care, since women with comorbidities had better CCS behaviors, which were explained by a good quality of primary care follow-up.

Conclusion

Our study identified the factors that explain CCS nonadherence among women with obesity and clarified the effects of health status and healthcare use on screening. Further efforts should be undertaken to reduce the obstacles to CCS by improving care among women with obesity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. INCa (2016) Les cancers en France en 2015 (French)

  2. Barré S, Massetti M, Leleu H, Catajar N, de Bels F (2017) Characteristics of French women who fail to undergo regular Pap smears for cervical cancer screening. BEH 2–3:39–47 (French)

    Google Scholar 

  3. ObEpi (2012) Enquête épidémiologique nationale sur le surpoids et l’obésité (French)

  4. Aldrich T, Hackley B (2010) The impact of obesity on gynecologic cancer screening: an integrative literature review. J Midwifery Womens Health 55:344–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Maruthur NM, Bolen SD, Brancati FL, Clark JM (2009) The association of obesity and cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity (Silver Spring) 17:375–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Friedman AM, Hemler JR, Rossetti E, Clemow LP, Ferrante JM (2012) Obese women’s barriers to mammography and Pap smear: the possible role of personality. Obesity (Silver Spring) 20:1611–1617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Joy D, Amanda F, Heather H, Suzanne L (2018) Provider weight-bias and how it contributes to healthcare disparities of obese patients. Interv Obes Diabetes. https://doi.org/10.31031/IOD.2018.02.000536

  8. Seymour J, Barnes JL, Schumacher J, Vollmer RL (2018) A qualitative exploration of weight bias and quality of health care among health care professionals using hypothetical patient scenarios. Inquiry 55:46958018774171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bertakis KD, Azari R (2005) The impact of obesity on primary care visits. Obes Res 13:1615–1623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pearson WS, Bhat-Schelbert K, Ford ES, Mokdad AH (2009) The impact of obesity on time spent with the provider and number of medications managed during office-based physician visits using a cross-sectional, national health survey. BMC Public Health 9:436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferrante JM, Chen PH, Crabtree BF, Wartenberg D (2007) Cancer screening in women: body mass index and adherence to physician recommendations. Am J Prev Med 32:525–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Diaz A, Kang J, Moore SP, Baade P, Langbecker D, Condon JR et al (2017) Association between comorbidity and participation in breast and cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol 47:7–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hernandez-Boussard T, Ahmed SM, Morton JM (2012) Obesity disparities in preventive care: findings from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2005–2007. Obesity (Silver Spring) 20:1639–1644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Santos-Eggimann B (2007) Healthcare utilization of overweight and obese Europeans aged 50–79 years. J Public Health 15:377–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Labeit AM, Peinemann F (2017) Determinants of a GP visit and cervical cancer screening examination in Great Britain. PLoS ONE 12:e0174363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sicsic J, Franc C (2014) Obstacles to the uptake of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings: what remains to be achieved by French national programmes? BMC Health Serv Res 14:465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Andersen RM (1995) Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav 36:1–10

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Zins M, Goldberg M, CONSTANCES Team (2015) The French CONSTANCES population-based cohort: design, inclusion and follow-up. Eur J Epidemiol 30:1317–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Haute Autorité de Santé (2010) Dépistage du cancer du col de l’utérus (French). https://www.has-santefr/portail/jcms/r_1501380/fr/depistage-du-cancer-du-col-de-l-uterus. Accessed 26 Sep 2018

  20. Beran TN, Violato C (2010) Structural equation modeling in medical research: a primer. BMC Res Notes 3:267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. van Buuren S (2007) Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Stat Methods Med Res 16:219–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Duport N, Serra D, Goulard H, Bloch J (2008) Which factors influence screening practices for female cancer in France? Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 56:303–313

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Damiani G, Basso D, Acampora A, Bianchi CB, Silvestrini G, Frisicale EM et al (2015) The impact of level of education on adherence to breast and cervical cancer screening: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med 81:281–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kilfoyle KA, Vitko M, O’Conor R, Bailey SC (2016) Health literacy and women’s reproductive health: a systematic review. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 25:1237–1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim K, Han HR (2016) Potential links between health literacy and cervical cancer screening behaviors: a systematic review. Psychooncology 25:122–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nutbeam D (2000) Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot Int 15:259–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Amy NK, Aalborg A, Lyons P, Keranen L (2006) Barriers to routine gynecological cancer screening for White and African-American obese women. Int J Obes (Lond) 30:147–155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Phelan SM, Burgess DJ, Yeazel MW, Hellerstedt WL, Griffin JM, van Ryn M (2015) Impact of weight bias and stigma on quality of care and outcomes for patients with obesity. Obes Rev 16:319–326

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Fjaer EL, Balaj M, Stornes P, Todd A, McNamara CL, Eikemo TA (2017) Exploring the differences in general practitioner and health care specialist utilization according to education, occupation, income and social networks across Europe: findings from the European social survey (2014) special module on the social determinants of health. Eur J Public Health 27:73–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Droomers M, Westert GP (2004) Do lower socioeconomic groups use more health services, because they suffer from more illnesses? Eur J Public Health 14:311–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Damiani G, Federico B, Basso D, Ronconi A, Bianchi CB, Anzellotti GM et al (2012) Socioeconomic disparities in the uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening in Italy: a cross sectional study. BMC Public Health 12:99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mitchell RS, Padwal RS, Chuck AW, Klarenbach SW (2008) Cancer screening among the overweight and obese in Canada. Am J Prev Med 35:127–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee JA, Pause CJ (2016) Stigma in practice: barriers to health for fat women. Front Psychol 7:2063

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Ferrante JM, Ohman-Strickland P, Hudson SV, Hahn KA, Scott JG, Crabtree BF (2006) Colorectal cancer screening among obese versus non-obese patients in primary care practices. Cancer Detect Prev 30:459–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ornstein SM, Jenkins RG, Litvin CB, Wessell AM, Nietert PJ (2013) Preventive services delivery in patients with chronic illnesses: parallel opportunities rather than competing obligations. Ann Fam Med 11:344–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Richard A, Rohrmann S, Schmid SM, Tirri BF, Huang DJ, Guth U et al (2015) Lifestyle and health-related predictors of cervical cancer screening attendance in a Swiss population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol 39:870–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fedewa SA, Sauer AG, Siegel RL, Jemal A (2015) Prevalence of major risk factors and use of screening tests for cancer in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 24:637–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cleron E (2015) Femme et sport. Bull stat d’études n°15

  39. Clarke MA, Fetterman B, Cheung LC, Wentzensen N, Gage JC, Katki HA et al (2018) Epidemiologic evidence that excess body weight increases risk of cervical cancer by decreased detection of precancer. J Clin Oncol 36:1184–1191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the Inserm-Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines University “Epidemiological Population-Based Cohorts Unit” (UMS 11) who designed and is in charge of the CONSTANCES Cohort Study. They also thank the “Caisse nationale d’assurance maladie des travailleurs salaries” (CNAMTS) and the “Centres d’examens de santé” of the French Social Security which are collecting a large part of the data, as well as the “Caisse nationale d’assurance vieillesse”, ClinSearch, Asqualab and Eurocell in charge of the data quality control.

Funding

This work was supported by a Grant from the French Agency on Cancer (INCa, Grant Number 2014-1-PL SHS-05); the CONSTANCES cohort benefits from a Grant from ANR (Grant Number ANR-11-INBS-0002); CONSTANCES is also partly funded by MSD, AstraZeneca and Lundbeck.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Epidemiology, Institut Pierre Louis D’Epidémiologie Et de Santé Publique IPLESP, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, 75012, Paris, France

    Jeanna-eve Franck, Pierre Chauvin & Gwenn Menvielle

  2. INSERM, Univ Paris-Saclay, Univ Paris-Sud, UVSQ, CESP, Villejuif, France

    Virginie Ringa

  3. Population-Based Epidemiologic Cohorts Unit, INSERM, UMS 011, Villejuif, France

    Mireille Cœuret-Pellicer

  4. INSERM IPLESP – ERES, 27 rue Chaligny, 75012, Paris, France

    Jeanna-eve Franck

Authors
  1. Jeanna-eve Franck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Virginie Ringa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mireille Cœuret-Pellicer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pierre Chauvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gwenn Menvielle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GM and JF designed the study. JF ran the analyses and wrote the paper. JF and MP prepared the dataset. All authors discussed the results and their interpretation, participated to the writing of the paper and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeanna-eve Franck.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Franck, Je., Ringa, V., Cœuret-Pellicer, M. et al. The determinants of cervical cancer screening uptake in women with obesity: application of the Andersen’s behavioral model to the CONSTANCES survey. Cancer Causes Control 31, 51–62 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-019-01251-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-019-01251-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation