Disability and Participation in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Building disability-inclusive health systems

Health systems often fail people with disabilities, which might contribute to their shorter life expectancy and poorer health outcomes than people without disabilities. This Review provides an overview of the existing evidence on health inequities faced by people with disabilities and describes existing approaches to making health systems disability inclusive. Our Review documents a broad range of health-care inequities for people with disabilities (eg, lower levels of cancer screening), which probably contribute towards health differentials. We identified 90 good practice examples that illustrate current strategies to reduce inequalities. Implementing such strategies could help to ensure that health systems can expect, accept, and connect people with disabilities worldwide, deliver on their right to health, and achieve health for all.

Principles for Service Delivery: Best Practices for Cervical Screening for Women with Disabilities

Background

Cervical cancer screening is an important public health priority, yet many marginalized groups are not reached by existing programs. The nearly 700 million women with disabilities globally face substantial barriers in accessing cervical cancer screening and have lower coverage, yet there is limited evidence on what would support enhanced uptake among this population.

Methods

We updated a systematic review to estimate the disparity in screening uptake for women with disabilities. We conducted a scoping review to understand key barriers and the inclusion of disability in existing screening policies and possible solutions to improve screening uptakes amongst women with disabilities. We then formulated key principles for improved service delivery for this group, targeted predominantly at clinicians.

Results

Our updated review identified an additional five new studies, and confirmed that women with disabilities were less likely to be screened for cervical cancer (RR=0.65, 0.50-0.84). Disability-specific barriers to accessing screening pertained to: (1) knowledge and autonomy; (2) logistics; and (3) stigma and fear. Few guidelines included specific considerations for women with disabilities. Our scoping review showed that improving access to care must focus on improving (1) autonomy, awareness, and affordability; (2) human resources; and (3) health facility accessibility.

Conclusion

Screening programmes and health providers must ensure women with disabilities are included in cervical cancer screening programmes and thereby help to achieve their right to health and eliminate cervical cancer as a public health issue.

Access to general health care among people with disabilities in Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic review of quantitative research

In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), there are 85 million people with disabilities (PwD). They often experience barriers accessing healthcare and die, on average, 10-20 years earlier than those without disabilities. This study aimed to systematically review the quantitative literature on access to general healthcare among PwD, compared to those without disabilities, in LAC. A systematic review and narrative synthesis was conducted. We searched in EMBASE, MEDLINE, LILACS, MedCarib, PsycINFO, SciELO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Eligible articles were peer-reviewed, published between January 2000 and April 2023, and compared healthcare access (utilization, coverage, quality, affordability) between PwD and without disabilities in LAC. The search retrieved 16,538 records and 30 studies were included, most of which had a medium or high risk of bias (n = 23; 76%). Overall, the studies indicated that PwD use healthcare services more than those without disabilities. Some evidence indicated that women with disabilities were less likely to have received cancer screening. Limited evidence showed that health services affordability and quality were lower among PwD. In LAC, PwD appear to experience health inequities, although large gaps exist in the current evidence. Harmonization of disability and health access data collection is urgently needed to address this issue.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and attitudes of subjects with disability and their carers in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant disruption to countries worldwide, including Saudi Arabia. The fast preventative measures and the mass vaccine enrollment were vital to contain the pandemic in the country. However, vaccine hesitancy was a significant obstacle to taking the vaccine but was not previously explored. One hundred eighty-six subjects with disabilities were enrolled in this study in an attempt to explore their hesitancy and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines. Most participants were previously diagnosed with COVID-19 and had a close family who was also diagnosed with it. Most of them were willing to be vaccinated but had not received previous vaccinations. Official sources of information, e.g., TV/radio, were an essential factor driving their intention to get vaccinated. Beliefs that drove participants' vaccine acceptance included vaccine safety, sufficient testing before its release, and its ability to protect from infection. The results of this seminal study provide insights to public health policymakers, which should be considered and taken together in light of other studies addressing the population's vaccine hesitancy.

Use of General Health Examination and Cancer Screening among People with Disability Who Need Support from Others: Analysis of the 2016 Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions in Japan

Research on preventive healthcare services among people with disability in Japan is scarce. This study aimed to (1) examine the relationship between disability and the use of general health examination (GHE) and cancer screening (lung, gastric, colorectal, breast and cervical cancer) and (2) explore the reasons for not using GHE. This cross-sectional study used secondary data from individuals aged 20-74 years (n = 15,294) from the Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions of 2016. Binomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between disability and non-participation in preventive services. In addition, a descriptive analysis was conducted to explore the reasons for non-participation in GHE. Consequently, disability was identified as an independently associated factor for non-participation in GHE (odds ratios (OR): 1.73; 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 1.14-2.62) and screening for colorectal (OR: 1.78; 95%CI: 1.08-2.94), gastric (OR: 2.27; 95%CI: 1.27-4.05), cervical (OR: 2.12; 95%CI: 1.04-4.32) and breast cancer (OR: 2.22; 95%CI: 1.04-4.72), controlling for confounding factors. The most dominant reason for non-participation was "I can go to see the doctor anytime, if I am worried (25/54, 46.3%)." Our findings imply the existence of disability-based disparity in preventive healthcare service use in Japan.

Do people with disabilities experience disparities in cancer care? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Over 1.3 billion people, or 16% of the world's population, live with some form of disability. Recent studies have reported that people with disabilities (PwD) might not be receiving state-of-the-art treatment for cancer as their non-disabled peers; our objective was to systematically review this topic.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken to compare cancer outcomes and quality of cancer care between adults with and without disabilities (NIHR Prospero register ID number: CRD42022281506). A search of the literature was performed in July 2022 across five databases: EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. Peer-reviewed quantitative research articles, published in English from 2000 to 2022, with interventional or observational study designs, comparing cancer outcomes between a sample of adult patients with disabilities and a sample without disabilities were included. Studies focused on cancer screening and not treatment were excluded, as well as editorials, commentaries, opinion papers, reviews, case reports, case series under 10 patients and conference abstracts. Studies were evaluated by one reviewer for risk of bias based on a set of criteria according to the SIGN 50 guidelines. A narrative synthesis was conducted according to the Cochrane SWiM guidelines, with tables summarizing study characteristics and outcomes. This research received no external funding.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies were included in the systematic review. Compared to people without disabilities, PwD had worse cancer outcomes, in terms of poorer survival and higher overall and cancer-specific mortality. There was also evidence that PwD received poorer quality cancer care, including lower access to state-of-the-art care or curative-intent therapies, treatment delays, undertreatment or excessively invasive treatment, worse access to in-hospital services, less specialist healthcare utilization, less access to pain medications and inadequate end-of-life quality of care.

DISCUSSION

Limitations of this work include the exclusion of qualitative research, no assessment of publication bias, selection performed by only one reviewer, results from high-income countries only, no meta-analysis and a high risk of bias in 15% of included studies. In spite of these limitations, our results show that PwD often experience severe disparities in cancer care with less guideline-consistent care and higher mortality than people without disabilities. These findings raise urgent questions about how to ensure equitable care for PwD; in order to prevent avoidable morbidity and mortality, cancer care programs need to be evaluated and urgently improved, with specific training of clinical staff, more disability inclusive research, better communication and shared decision-making with patients and elimination of physical, social and cultural barriers.

Recommandations pour des soins préventifs pour promouvoir l’équité en matière de santé

Contexte:

Malgré des investissements importants dans un système de soins de santé public qui comprend des services préventifs, on continue d’observer des disparités évitables en matière de santé au Canada. L’équipe avait pour objectif de formuler des recommandations pour des soins de santé préventifs qui puissent améliorer l’équité en matière de santé par la priorisation des interventions efficaces à l’intention des groupes défavorisés.

Méthodes:

La ligne directrice a été élaborée par un comité composé de spécialistes en soins primaires et de membres de la patientèle, avec la contribution d’un groupe de patientes-et patientspartenaires ayant vécu diverses expériences. Après avoir sélectionné les sujets à prioriser, nous avons recensé les revues systématiques, les essais randomisés et contrôlés récents sur les méthodes de dépistage et d’autres études pertinentes sur l’efficacité du dépistage et de la prise en charge. Nous avons utilisé l’approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) pour formuler les recommandations et avons suivi le guide AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) pour rédiger le rapport. Il en a été de même avec les principes du Guidelines International Network pour la gestion des intérêts concurrents. Les recommandations ont été passées en revue par un comité externe d’experts en contenu avant d’être distribuées à des intervenants à l’échelle nationale pour approbation.

Recommandations:

Nous avons formulé 15 recommandations concernant le dépistage et d’autres soins préventifs et 1 recommandation de nature politique visant à améliorer l’accès aux soins primaires. Ainsi, nous recommandons de prioriser une stratégie de communication pour le dépistage du cancer colorectal à partir de l’âge de 45 ans et pour l’évaluation du risque de maladie cardiovasculaire pour lutter contre les iniquités en matière de santé et promouvoir la santé. Les interventions particulières qui devraient être déployées pour lutter contre les iniquités comprennent l’autodépistage du virus du papillome humain (VPH) et du VIH, et le test de libération de l’interféron γ pour l’infection tuberculeuse. Le dépistage de la dépression, de la toxicomanie, de la violence conjugale et de la pauvreté devrait également permettre aux personnes touchées d’accéder plus facilement à des interventions éprouvées. Nous recommandons une prise de contact systématique avec des professionnels de la santé en soins primaires pour les personnes défavorisées.

Interprétation:

Les interventions préventives éprouvées peuvent aider à combattre les iniquités en matière de santé si la priorité est accordée aux personnes défavorisées. Les médecins, les organisations de santé et les gouvernements devraient adopter des mesures fondées sur des données probantes et en faire le suivi s’ils veulent promouvoir l’équité en matière de santé partout au Canada.

Disparities in breast cancer among patients with disabilities: care gaps, accessibility, and best practices

Pronounced disparities exist in detecting and treating breast cancer in women with disabilities, leading to cancer detection at advanced stages. This paper provides an overview of disparities for women with disabilities related to breast cancer screening and care, primarily focusing on clinically significant mobility disabilities. Current care gaps include screening barriers related to accessibility and inequitable treatment options, with race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and disability severity factors mediating the disparities for this population. The reasons for these disparities are myriad and stem from both system-level deficiencies and individual-level clinician bias. Although structural changes are warranted, individual healthcare professionals must also be incorporated into the requisite change. Intersectionality is critical to disparities and inequities and should be central to any discussion of strategies for improving care for people with disabilities, many of whom have intersectional identities. Efforts to reduce screening rate disparities for breast cancer in women with mobility-related disabilities should start with improving accessibility through removing structural barriers, establishing comprehensive accessibility standards, and addressing healthcare professional bias. Future interventional studies are needed to implement and assess the value of programs to improve breast cancer screening rates in women with disabilities. Increasing the representation of women with disabilities in clinical trials may provide another avenue for reducing treatment disparities because these trials often provide breakthrough treatment to women with cancer diagnosed at later stages. Ultimately, attention to the specific needs of patients with disabilities should be improved across the United States to promote inclusive and effective cancer screening and treatment.

Preventive care recommendations to promote health equity

BACKGROUND

Avoidable disparities in health outcomes persist in Canada despite substantial investments in a publicly funded health care system that includes preventive services. Our objective was to provide preventive care recommendations that promote health equity by prioritizing effective interventions for people experiencing disadvantages.

METHODS

The guideline was developed by a primary care provider-patient panel, with input from a patient-partner panel with diverse lived experiences. After selecting priority topics, we searched for systematic reviews and recent randomized controlled trials of screening and other relevant studies of screening accuracy and management efficacy. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations and followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) reporting guidance. We managed competing interests using the Guideline International Network principles. The recommendations were externally reviewed by content experts and circulated for endorsement by national stakeholders.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We developed 15 screening and other preventive care recommendations and 1 policy recommendation on improving access to primary care. We recommend prioritized outreach for colorectal cancer screening starting at age 45 years and for cardiovascular disease risk assessment, to help address inequities and promote health. Specific interventions that should be rolled out in ways that address inequities include human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing, HIV self-testing and interferon-γ release assays for tuberculosis infection. Screening for depression, substance use, intimate partner violence and poverty should help connect people experiencing specific disadvantages with proven interventions. We recommend automatic connection to primary care for people experiencing disadvantages.

INTERPRETATION

Proven preventive care interventions can address health inequities if people experiencing disadvantages are prioritized. Clinicians, health care organizations and governments should take evidence-based actions and track progress in promoting health equity across Canada.

Breast cancer screening and its associating factors among hungarian women aged 45-65: a cross-sectional study based on the European health interview surveys from 2009 to 2019

BACKGROUND

In 2020, globally 685,000 people died, and 2.3 million women were diagnosed with breast cancer. The main cause of cancer deaths among women is breast cancer, which account for 15.5% of all cancer deaths. Most of these could have been avoided with timely diagnosis. The aim of our study was to determine the proportion of breast screening participation in Hungary, and to identify possible factors that may influence breast screening attendance.

METHODS

Our data were gathered from the cross-sectional European Health Interview Surveys conducted in Hungary in 2009, 2014, and 2019. In terms of categorical characteristics, Pearson's chi-square test was performed to evaluate the differences between people who have attended breast screening within two years and who have only attended more than two years ago. To determine the factors that may have an impact on the uptake of screening, generalized linear model with logit link function regarding binomial probability distribution was executed.

RESULTS

The responses of 2626 women between the age 45-65 were included in our study. In 2009 85% (n=741), in 2014 90% (n=851) and in 2019 87% (n=699) of the respondents claimed to have ever attended a breast screening in their life. In 2009 68% (n=594), in 2014 66% (n=630) and in 2019 64% (n=515) said that they have taken part in breast screening within two years (p=0.331). From 2014 to 2019 (AOR=0.72 [0.57-0.89]) the chance of attending breast screening was decreasing. We observed that both secondary (AOR=1.97 [1.60-2.44]) and tertiary educational level (AOR=2.23 [1.67-3.00]), higher perceived income (AOR=1.54 [1.25-1.90]), and more frequent meeting with the doctor (AOR=1.77 [1.39-2.27]) and with the specialist (AOR=1.88 [1.54-2.28]) appeared as protective factors of breast screening attendance.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the lifetime prevalence of breast screening participation is high, however the recommended biennial rate is relatively low. To increase the participation rate, various initiatives would be needed, especially for women in identified risk groups, which are lower educational level, lower perceived income, and less frequent meeting with the doctor and with the specialist.

Disparities in Cervical Cancer Screening by Disability Types: a Systematic Review

Previous studies showed that the receipt of cervical cancer screening among women with disabilities is low. Some disparities may also exist within the subpopulation of women with disabilities. This systematic review synthesized the current literature on the receipt of cervical cancer screening by disability type. PubMed, ProQuest, EBSCO, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar searches were performed to identify studies between April 2012 and January 2022. A total of ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. All studies employed a cross-sectional approach (n = 10) and most used multivariable logistic regression (n = 7). Two of the ten articles included classified disability types as basic action difficulties and complex activities, while eight of the articles classified it as either hearing, vision, cognitive, mobility, physical, functional, language disability, or autism. The association between disability types and cervical cancer screening was inconsistent across publications. All the studies except for one however indicated that evidence of lower screening rates exists within the subpopulation of women with disability. The available evidence supports the conclusion that disparities in cervical cancer screening are evident in disability subgroups; however, evidence is inconsistent regarding which disability type experiences lower receipt of screening. Screened articles utilized different definitions for disability adding to the inconsistency in the results. More focused research using a standardized definition for disability is required to determine which disability type experiences significant disparities in cervical cancer screening. This review highlights the need for healthcare organizations to target specific tailored interventions to improve the quality of care for specific disability subgroups.