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
Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.
Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Cancer. 2016 May 15;122(10):1560-9. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29954. Epub 2016 Apr 11.
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.
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.
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).
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.
20多年前推出的澳大利亚国家宫颈癌筛查计划并未记录筛查参与者的原住民身份。本文报告了对澳大利亚原住民和非原住民女性参与宫颈癌筛查情况的首次基于人群的估计。
这是一项基于人群的回顾性研究,研究对象为2000年至2011年期间参与宫颈癌筛查的1,334,795名20至69岁的昆士兰女性居民;通过与住院记录关联,确定其中26,829人为原住民。参与率的计算方法是将接受筛查的女性人数除以平均估计常住人口数,并针对子宫切除术进行调整,计算每个2年、3年和5年筛查期的参与率。采用多因素逻辑回归估计比值比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI),并针对年龄组、居住地点和社会经济劣势进行调整。
在2010 - 2011年,非原住民女性的2年参与率为55.7%(95%CI,55.6% - 55.9%),原住民女性为33.5%(95%CI,32.9% - 34.1%);相较于2000 - 2001年(分别为57.7% [95%CI,57.6% - 57.9%]和35.3% [95%CI,34.5% - 36.1%])有所下降。原住民和非原住民女性之间的差异在45至49岁年龄组中最为显著。两组的3年和5年参与率均较高,两组之间的绝对差异更大。原住民身份与居住地点和社会经济劣势之间存在显著交互作用,这表明除了非常偏远的地区(OR,0.99;95%CI,0.95 - 1.02)外,原住民/非原住民差异在所有居住地区都很明显,且在最富裕地区最为显著(OR,0.26;95%CI,0.24 - 0.27)。
澳大利亚原住民女性的参与率低于非原住民女性,且这一差距并未缩小。这些结果为2017年开始的新澳大利亚宫颈癌筛查计划提供了重要基准,该计划将为减少原住民女性的不平等现象以及解决原住民身份收集方面长期存在的数据缺陷提供机会。《癌症》2016年;122:1560 - 9。©2016作者。《癌症》由威利期刊公司代表美国癌症协会出版。