4.7 Review

Inequalities in breast and cervical cancer screening among urban Mexican women

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 47, Issue 5, Pages 471-476

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.07.005

Keywords

Mammography; Pap test; SABE study; Mexico; Older women; Inequalities

Funding

  1. Institute of Gender and Health
  2. Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR/IRSC)
  3. Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR/IRSC) Doctoral Research Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To examine the equity of screening for breast and cervical cancer among women aged 50 and over living in Mexico City according to the Andersen behavioural model. Methods. Logistic regressions were used to analyze the associations of predisposing factors, enabling resources and health needs with mammography and Pap testing among 1323 women aged 50 and over living in Mexico City. The data were taken from SABE, a survey conducted in Latin American and Caribbean cities in 1999-2000. Results. Referring to the previous two years, use of mammography was less frequent (14.8%) than Pap testing (53.7%). Higher education and having private health insurance were associated with receiving both procedures. Being married was associated with receipt of Pap testing, while being unmarried was associated with mammography. Younger women were more likely to receive a Pap test. Other cancer prevention behaviours were strong predictors of mammography and Pap test use. Conclusions. There are inequities in access to cancer screening services among women aged 50 and over in Mexico. Cancer prevention programs need to implement strategies that guarantee free and accessible services independently of social conditions or type of health insurance. The observed clustering of screening services suggests that packaging screening programs for gynaecological cancer could be used to increase coverage. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available