4.7 Article

Cervical cancer screening among urban immigrants by region of origin A population-based cohort study

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 51, 期 6, 页码 509-516

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.09.014

关键词

Cervical cancer; Cancer screening; Immigrants

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes For Health Research (CIHR)
  2. Primary Health Care System
  3. Canadian Population Health Initiative of the Canadian Institute for Health Information Citizenship and Immigration Canada
  4. Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)
  5. ICES
  6. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives We compared the prevalence of appropriate cervical cancer screening among screening-eligible immigrant women from major geographic regions of the world and native-born women Methods We determined the proportion of women who were screened during the three year period of 2006-2008 among 2 9 million screening-eligible women living in urban centres in Ontario Canada In multivariate analyses we adjusted for numerous variables including age neighbourhood-level income and prenatal visits during the study period Results 61 3% of women were up-to date on cervical cancer screening Screening rates were lowest among women from South Asia when compared to the referent group (Canadian-born women and immigrants who arrived before 1985) (adjusted rate ratio 081 95% Cl [0 80-0 82] among women aged 1849 years adjusted rate ratio 0 67 [0 65-0 69] among women aged 50-66 years) Of the older South Asian women living in the lowest-income neighbourhoods and not in a primary care enrolment model 21 9% had been appropriately screened In contrast among Canadian-born women living in the highest-income neighbourhoods and in a primary care enrolment model 790% had been appropriately screened Conclusion Efforts to reduce cervical cancer screening disparities should focus on women living in the lowest-income neighbourhoods and women from South Asia (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc All rights reserved

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据