Cargando…

The first comprehensive report on Indigenous Australian women's inequalities in cervical screening: A retrospective registry cohort study in Queensland, Australia (2000‐2011)

BACKGROUND: The Australian National Cervical Screening Program, introduced more than 20 years ago, does not record the Indigenous status of screening participants. This article reports the first population‐based estimates of participation in cervical screening for Indigenous and non‐Indigenous Austr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Whop, Lisa J., Garvey, Gail, Baade, Peter, Cunningham, Joan, Lokuge, Kamalini, Brotherton, Julia M. L., Valery, Patricia C., O'Connell, Dianne L., Canfell, Karen, Diaz, Abbey, Roder, David, Gertig, Dorota, Moore, Suzanne P., Condon, John R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5074237/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27149550
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29954
_version_ 1782461694861115392
author Whop, Lisa J.
Garvey, Gail
Baade, Peter
Cunningham, Joan
Lokuge, Kamalini
Brotherton, Julia M. L.
Valery, Patricia C.
O'Connell, Dianne L.
Canfell, Karen
Diaz, Abbey
Roder, David
Gertig, Dorota
Moore, Suzanne P.
Condon, John R.
author_facet Whop, Lisa J.
Garvey, Gail
Baade, Peter
Cunningham, Joan
Lokuge, Kamalini
Brotherton, Julia M. L.
Valery, Patricia C.
O'Connell, Dianne L.
Canfell, Karen
Diaz, Abbey
Roder, David
Gertig, Dorota
Moore, Suzanne P.
Condon, John R.
author_sort Whop, Lisa J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Australian National Cervical Screening Program, introduced more than 20 years ago, does not record the Indigenous status of screening participants. This article reports the first population‐based estimates of participation in cervical screening for Indigenous and non‐Indigenous Australian women. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population‐based study of 1,334,795 female Queensland residents, aged 20 to 69 years, who participated in cervical screening from 2000 to 2011; 26,829 were identified as Indigenous through linkage to hospitalization records. Participation rates were calculated as the number of women screened divided by the average estimated resident population, with adjustments made for hysterectomies, for each 2‐, 3‐, and 5‐year screening period. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), which were adjusted for age group, place of residence, and socioeconomic disadvantage. RESULTS: In 2010‐2011, the 2‐year participation rate was 55.7% (95% CI, 55.6%‐55.9%) for non‐Indigenous women and 33.5% (95% CI, 32.9%‐34.1%) for Indigenous women; this represented a decrease from 2000‐2001 (57.7% [95% CI, 57.6%‐57.9%] and 35.3% [95% CI, 34.5%‐36.1%], respectively). The difference between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous women was greatest for those aged 45 to 49 years. The 3‐ and 5‐year participation rates were higher within both groups, and the absolute differences between the 2 groups were larger. Significant interactions between the Indigenous status and the place of residence and socioeconomic disadvantage highlight that the Indigenous/non‐Indigenous differential was evident in all places of residence except for very remote areas (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95‐1.02) and was greatest in the most affluent areas (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.24‐0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Indigenous Australian women participate less than non‐Indigenous women, and this gap has not closed. These results provide important benchmarks for the new Australian cervical screening program commencing in 2017, which will provide opportunities to reduce inequities for Indigenous women and address longstanding data deficiencies in the collection of the Indigenous status. Cancer 2016;122:1560–9. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5074237
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50742372016-11-04 The first comprehensive report on Indigenous Australian women's inequalities in cervical screening: A retrospective registry cohort study in Queensland, Australia (2000‐2011) Whop, Lisa J. Garvey, Gail Baade, Peter Cunningham, Joan Lokuge, Kamalini Brotherton, Julia M. L. Valery, Patricia C. O'Connell, Dianne L. Canfell, Karen Diaz, Abbey Roder, David Gertig, Dorota Moore, Suzanne P. Condon, John R. Cancer Original Articles BACKGROUND: The Australian National Cervical Screening Program, introduced more than 20 years ago, does not record the Indigenous status of screening participants. This article reports the first population‐based estimates of participation in cervical screening for Indigenous and non‐Indigenous Australian women. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population‐based study of 1,334,795 female Queensland residents, aged 20 to 69 years, who participated in cervical screening from 2000 to 2011; 26,829 were identified as Indigenous through linkage to hospitalization records. Participation rates were calculated as the number of women screened divided by the average estimated resident population, with adjustments made for hysterectomies, for each 2‐, 3‐, and 5‐year screening period. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), which were adjusted for age group, place of residence, and socioeconomic disadvantage. RESULTS: In 2010‐2011, the 2‐year participation rate was 55.7% (95% CI, 55.6%‐55.9%) for non‐Indigenous women and 33.5% (95% CI, 32.9%‐34.1%) for Indigenous women; this represented a decrease from 2000‐2001 (57.7% [95% CI, 57.6%‐57.9%] and 35.3% [95% CI, 34.5%‐36.1%], respectively). The difference between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous women was greatest for those aged 45 to 49 years. The 3‐ and 5‐year participation rates were higher within both groups, and the absolute differences between the 2 groups were larger. Significant interactions between the Indigenous status and the place of residence and socioeconomic disadvantage highlight that the Indigenous/non‐Indigenous differential was evident in all places of residence except for very remote areas (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95‐1.02) and was greatest in the most affluent areas (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.24‐0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Indigenous Australian women participate less than non‐Indigenous women, and this gap has not closed. These results provide important benchmarks for the new Australian cervical screening program commencing in 2017, which will provide opportunities to reduce inequities for Indigenous women and address longstanding data deficiencies in the collection of the Indigenous status. Cancer 2016;122:1560–9. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-04-11 2016-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5074237/ /pubmed/27149550 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29954 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Whop, Lisa J.
Garvey, Gail
Baade, Peter
Cunningham, Joan
Lokuge, Kamalini
Brotherton, Julia M. L.
Valery, Patricia C.
O'Connell, Dianne L.
Canfell, Karen
Diaz, Abbey
Roder, David
Gertig, Dorota
Moore, Suzanne P.
Condon, John R.
The first comprehensive report on Indigenous Australian women's inequalities in cervical screening: A retrospective registry cohort study in Queensland, Australia (2000‐2011)
title The first comprehensive report on Indigenous Australian women's inequalities in cervical screening: A retrospective registry cohort study in Queensland, Australia (2000‐2011)
title_full The first comprehensive report on Indigenous Australian women's inequalities in cervical screening: A retrospective registry cohort study in Queensland, Australia (2000‐2011)
title_fullStr The first comprehensive report on Indigenous Australian women's inequalities in cervical screening: A retrospective registry cohort study in Queensland, Australia (2000‐2011)
title_full_unstemmed The first comprehensive report on Indigenous Australian women's inequalities in cervical screening: A retrospective registry cohort study in Queensland, Australia (2000‐2011)
title_short The first comprehensive report on Indigenous Australian women's inequalities in cervical screening: A retrospective registry cohort study in Queensland, Australia (2000‐2011)
title_sort first comprehensive report on indigenous australian women's inequalities in cervical screening: a retrospective registry cohort study in queensland, australia (2000‐2011)
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5074237/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27149550
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29954
work_keys_str_mv AT whoplisaj thefirstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT garveygail thefirstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT baadepeter thefirstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT cunninghamjoan thefirstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT lokugekamalini thefirstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT brothertonjuliaml thefirstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT valerypatriciac thefirstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT oconnelldiannel thefirstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT canfellkaren thefirstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT diazabbey thefirstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT roderdavid thefirstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT gertigdorota thefirstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT mooresuzannep thefirstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT condonjohnr thefirstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT whoplisaj firstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT garveygail firstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT baadepeter firstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT cunninghamjoan firstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT lokugekamalini firstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT brothertonjuliaml firstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT valerypatriciac firstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT oconnelldiannel firstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT canfellkaren firstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT diazabbey firstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT roderdavid firstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT gertigdorota firstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT mooresuzannep firstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011
AT condonjohnr firstcomprehensivereportonindigenousaustralianwomensinequalitiesincervicalscreeningaretrospectiveregistrycohortstudyinqueenslandaustralia20002011