Szczepura Ala, Price Charlotte, Gumber Anil
Clinical Sciences Institute, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
BMC Public Health. 2008 Oct 2;8:346. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-346.
A number of studies have reported low uptake of cancer screening programmes by South Asian populations in the UK. However, studies to date have not adjusted findings for differences in demographics and socio-economic status of these populations.
All residents in Coventry and Warwickshire, UK, eligible for screening. Uptakes compared for round 1 (2000-02) and round 2 (2003-05) of a national bowel cancer screening pilot, and for rounds 1, 2 and 5 of the established NHS breast cancer screening programme (commenced 1989).
Bowel screening data were analysed for 123,367 invitees in round 1 and 116,773 in round 2 (total 240,140 cases). Breast screening data were analysed for 61,934, 62,829 and 86,749 invitees in rounds 1, 2 and 5 respectively (total 211,512 cases).
Screening uptake was compared for two broad meta-categories (South Asian and non-Asian) and for five Asian subgroups (Hindu-Gujarati; Hindu-Other; Muslim; Sikh; South Asian Other). Univariate and multivariate analyses examined screening uptake and various demographic attributes of invitees, including age, gender, deprivation and ethnic group.
South Asians demonstrated significantly lower (p < 0.001) unadjusted bowel screening uptake; 32.8% vs. 61.3% for non-Asians (round 1). Rates were particularly low for the Muslim subgroup: 26.1% (round 1), 21.5% (round 2). For breast screening, a smaller difference was observed between South Asians and non-Asians; initially 60.8% vs. 75.4% (round 1) and later 66.8% vs. 77.7% (round 5). Thus, the disparity reduced gradually over time, alongside an overall trend of increased uptake. However, figures remained consistently low for Muslims (51% in rounds 1 and 5). After adjusting for age, deprivation (and gender), bowel screening uptake remained significantly lower for all South Asian subgroups. After similar adjustments, breast screening uptake remained lower for all subgroups except Hindu-Gujaratis. For Muslims registered with an Asian (vs. non-Asian) GP, bowel screening uptake was significantly lower (p < 0.001). However, breast screening uptake for Muslims with an Asian (vs. non-Asian) GP showed no difference (p = 0.12) in the same period. Colonoscopy and breast assessment uptakes were similar for both meta-categories, but Asian response time appeared slower for colonoscopy. The percentage of abnormal FOBT results was significantly higher for South Asian invitees. A slight increase in abnormal mammograms was observed for Muslims over time (2.7% to 4.2% in rounds 1 and 5 respectively).
The lower cancer screening uptakes observed for the South Asian population cannot be attributed to socio-economic, age or gender population differences. Although breast screening disparities have reduced over time, significant differences remain. We conclude that both programmes need to implement and assess interventions to reduce such differences.
多项研究报告称,英国的南亚人群对癌症筛查项目的参与率较低。然而,迄今为止的研究尚未针对这些人群在人口统计学和社会经济地位方面的差异对研究结果进行调整。
英国考文垂市和沃里克郡所有符合筛查条件的居民。对一项全国性肠癌筛查试点的第1轮(2000 - 2002年)和第2轮(2003 - 2005年),以及已确立的国民健康服务体系(NHS)乳腺癌筛查项目(始于1989年)的第1轮、第2轮和第5轮的参与率进行了比较。
分析了第1轮123,367名受邀者和第2轮116,773名受邀者的肠癌筛查数据(共240,140例)。分别分析了乳腺癌筛查项目第1轮、第2轮和第5轮的61,934名、62,829名和86,749名受邀者的数据(共211,512例)。
比较了两个宽泛的总体类别(南亚人和非亚洲人)以及五个亚洲子群体(印度教古吉拉特人;其他印度教徒;穆斯林;锡克教徒;其他南亚人)的筛查参与率。单变量和多变量分析研究了筛查参与率以及受邀者的各种人口统计学特征,包括年龄、性别、贫困程度和种族。
南亚人的未调整肠癌筛查参与率显著较低(p < 0.001);非亚洲人为61.3%,南亚人为32.8%(第1轮)。穆斯林子群体的参与率尤其低:26.1%(第1轮),21.5%(第2轮)。对于乳腺癌筛查,南亚人和非亚洲人之间的差异较小;最初为60.8%对75.4%(第1轮),后来为66.8%对77.7%(第5轮)。因此,随着时间的推移,这种差距逐渐缩小,同时参与率总体呈上升趋势。然而,穆斯林的数字一直较低(第1轮和第5轮均为51%)。在对年龄、贫困程度(和性别)进行调整后,所有南亚子群体的肠癌筛查参与率仍然显著较低。经过类似调整后,除印度教古吉拉特人外,所有子群体的乳腺癌筛查参与率仍然较低。对于在亚洲(而非非亚洲)全科医生处注册的穆斯林,肠癌筛查参与率显著较低(p < 0.001)。然而,同期在亚洲(而非非亚洲)全科医生处注册的穆斯林的乳腺癌筛查参与率没有差异(p = 0.12)。两个总体类别在结肠镜检查和乳房评估的参与率方面相似,但亚洲人在结肠镜检查方面的响应时间似乎较慢。南亚受邀者的粪便潜血试验(FOBT)异常结果百分比显著更高。随着时间的推移,观察到穆斯林的乳房X光检查异常情况略有增加(第1轮和第5轮分别从2.7%增至4.2%)。
观察到的南亚人群较低的癌症筛查参与率不能归因于社会经济、年龄或性别人口差异。尽管乳腺癌筛查差距随着时间的推移有所缩小,但显著差异仍然存在。我们得出结论,这两个项目都需要实施并评估干预措施以减少此类差异。