Barbara Willems

Background: While organized and opportunistic cervical cancer screening (CCS) programs implemented across the European Union have increased participation rates, barriers to socioeconomically deprived women remain substantial, implying high levels of inequality in CCS uptake. Aim: This study assesses how the screening strategy (as a score based on the availability of organized population-based CCS programs), accessibility of the healthcare system (as an index of out-of-pocket expenditure as a proportion of total healthcare costs, public health expenditure as a percentage of total GDP, and general practitioner (GP) density per 10′000 inhabitants) and social protection (as a decommodification index), impact education- and income-based inequalities in CCS uptake. Methods: A two-level design with 25–64-year-old women (N = 96′883), eligible for Pap smear screening, nested in 28 European countries, was used to analyze data from the European Health Interview Survey’s second wave, using multilevel logistic regression modelling. Results: Clear educational and income gradients in CCS uptake were found, which were smaller in countries with organized CCS programs, higher accessibility of the healthcare system and a higher level of decommodification. Furthermore, three-way interaction terms revealed that these gradients were smaller when organized CCS programs were implemented in countries with better accessibility of the healthcare system or a high level of decommodification. Conclusion: This study indicates that the combination of organized screening and high accessibility of the healthcare system or social protection is essential for having lower levels of inequality in CCS uptake. In such countries, the structural threshold for poorer and lower educated women to engage in CCS is lower. This may be explained by them having a better interaction with their GP, who may convince them of the screening test, lower out-of-pocket payments, and financial support to buffer against a disadvantageous position on the labor market.

Background: Research on inequalities in cervical cancer screening (CCS) participation has overlooked the distinction between ‘never-’ and ‘under-screeners’ while different socioeconomic and demographic determinants may underlie ‘non-’ and ‘under-’ screening participation. This study examines socioeconomic and demographic inequalities in never and under CCS participation. We compare cross-national prevalence and trends among these two groups in Switzerland and Belgium, two countries with similar opportunistic CCS strategy but different healthcare systems. Methods: Data on 38,806 women aged 20–70 from the Swiss Health Interview Survey (1992–2012) and 19,019 women aged 25–64 from the Belgian Health Interview Survey (1997–2013), both population-based cross-sectional nationally representative surveys, was analysed. Weighted adjusted prevalence ratios were estimated with multivariate Poisson regressions. Results: Over the studied period, never screening prevalence was about 15% in both Switzerland and Belgium and under screening prevalence about 14.0%. Socioeconomic gradients were found among both never- and under-screeners. Higher income women had lower never and under screening prevalence in Switzerland and a similar gradient in education was observed in Belgium. Importantly, distinct socioeconomic and demographic determinants were found to underlie never and under screening participation. Never screening was significantly higher among foreign nationals in both countries and this association was not observed in under screening. Never screening prevalence was lower among older age groups, while under screening increased with older age. Over time, age inequalities diminished among never- and under- screeners in Switzerland while educational inequalities increased among never-screeners in Belgium. Conclusion: Findings revealed that determinants of screening inequalities differed among never- and under-screeners and hence these should be addressed with different public health strategies. Crucially, socioeconomic and demographic inequalities were more pronounced among never-screeners who appeared to face more structural and persistent inequalities. Differences between the two countries should also be noted. The more liberal-type Swiss healthcare systems appeared to shape income-related screening inequalities, while education appeared to be a stronger determinant of never- and under-screening in Belgium.

We investigate whether the extent of educational inequalities in the use of Pap smears (cervical cancer screening) and mammograms (breast cancer screening) in Belgium has changed over time in accordance with the pattern predicted by diffusion of innovation theory, as well as how the regional cancer screening policies of Flanders and Wallonia influence this pattern. Data were obtained from five successive cross-sectional waves (1997–2001–2004-2008-2013) of the Belgian Health Interview Survey. Final sample sizes consisted of 8988 women aged 25–64 years for cervical cancer screening and 4194 women aged 50–69 years for breast cancer screening. We calculated absolute and relative measures of inequality, more specifically, the slope index of inequality (SII) and the relative index of inequality (RII), and their development over time. In both Flanders and Wallonia, mammogram use increased greatly between 1997 and 2013, while Pap smear use has remained quite stable over time. Educational inequalities in cervical-cancer screening have been largely persistent over time in both regions. In contrast, educational inequalities in breast cancer screening fluctuated more between 1997 and 2013. Between 1997 and 2001, when the breast cancer screening programme was implemented in Flanders, RII reduced significantly by 45%. Inequality measures did not change significantly in Wallonia, where it is known that most women are screened opportunistically outside the programme. By focussing on Belgium, this study demonstrates that regional variations in the support of a national screening programme can result in regional variations in the pattern of diffusion for cancer screening, as well as to the development of inequalities in cancer screening participation. Moreover, the findings demonstrate that high visibility and awareness of the screening programme, as was more the case in Flanders than it was in Wallonia, are required in order to reduce or eliminate educational inequalities in cancer screening participation over time. General practitioners and gynaecologists can play a decisive role in this regard.

The authors would like to correct the errors in the publication of the original article.

To extend the literature on educational inequalities in cancer screening participation (1) by simultaneously focusing on participation in screening for cervical, breast and colorectal cancer across 27 European countries and (2) by statistically testing whether these educational inequalities vary according to country-specific screening strategies: organised or opportunistic.