Does removal of out-of-pocket costs for cervical and breast cancer screening work? A quasi-experimental study to evaluate the impact on attendance, attendance inequality and average cost per uptake of a Japanese government intervention

International Journal of Cancer

Volumn 133, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 972-983

  Tabuchi, Takahiro ^a   Hoshino, Takahiro ^b   Nakayama, Tomio ^a   Ito, Yuri ^a   Ioka, Akiko ^a   Miyashiro, Isao ^a   Tsukuma, Hideaki ^a  

^a OSAKA MEDICAL CENTER FOR CANCER AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES   (Japan)

^b NAGOYA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Japan; mammography; Pap smear; removing out of pocket costs; socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening attendance

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; COST CONTROL; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; EMPLOYMENT STATUS; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH STATUS; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; INCOME; JAPANESE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MARRIAGE; MEDICAL EXAMINATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUASI EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; SELF EVALUATION; SMOKING; SOCIAL STATUS; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

ADULT; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; JAPAN; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; SOCIAL JUSTICE; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; UTERINE NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84878869157     PISSN: 00207136     EISSN: 10970215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28095     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. American Cancer Society. Global cancer facts & figures, 2nd edn. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society, 2011.
2. Cancer Control Promotion Conference. Proceedings and reports. Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2011 (in Japanese).
3. von Karsa L, Anttila A, Ronco G, et al. Cancer screening in the European Union. Report on the implementation of the council recommendation on cancer screening-first reported. Luxembourg: the European Commission, 2008.
4. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Practice of the cancer screening in municipalities in 2010. Available at: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/ 2r9852000002bifz.html (in Japanese).
5. OECD. OECD Health Data 2012. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/els/ healthpoliciesanddata/oecdhealthdata2012.htm.
6. Anttila A, Ronco G, Clifford G, et al. Cervical cancer screening programmes and policies in 18 European countries. Br J Cancer 2004; 91: 935-41. (Pubitemid 39273788)
7. Baron RC, Rimer BK, Coates RJ, et al. Client-directed interventions to increase community access to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2008; 35: S56-S66. (Pubitemid 351787499)
8. Spadea T, Bellini S, Kunst A, et al. The impact of interventions to improve attendance in female cancer screening among lower socioeconomic groups: a review. Prev Med 2010; 50: 159-64.
9. Sabatino SA, Lawrence B, Elder R, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. Am J Prev Med 2012; 43: 97-118.
10. Everett T, Bryant A, Griffin MF, et al. Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 5: CD002834.
11. Mackenbach JP, Stirbu I, Roskam AJ, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 2468-81. (Pubitemid 351793020)
12. World Health Organization. A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Geneva: WHO Document Production Services, 2010.
13. Fukuda Y, Nakamura K, Takano T,. Reduced likelihood of cancer screening among women in urban areas and with low socio-economic status: a multilevel analysis in Japan. Public Health 2005; 119: 875-84. (Pubitemid 41258457)
14. Yabroff KR, Gordis L,. Does stage at diagnosis influence the observed relationship between socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence, case-fatality, and mortality? Soc Sci Med 2003; 57: 2265-79. (Pubitemid 37324009)
15. Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Manjer J, Janzon L,. Non-attendance in breast cancer screening is associated with unfavourable socio-economic circumstances and advanced carcinoma. Int J Cancer 2004; 108: 754-60. (Pubitemid 38076408)
16. Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2008.
17. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Healthy Japan 21 (Second). Available at: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/kenkou/kenkounippon21.html (in Japanese).
18. National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine. Fulfilling the potential of cancer prevention and early detection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.
19. Weller DP, Patnick J, McIntosh HM, et al. Uptake in cancer screening programmes. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 693-9.
20. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Comprehensive survey of living condition of people on health and welfare. Tokyo, Japan: Health and Welfare Statistics Association.
21. Hamashima C, Aoki D, Miyagi E, et al. The Japanese guideline for cervical cancer screening. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2010; 40: 485-502.
22. Trivedi AN, Swaminathan S, Mor V,. Insurance parity and the use of outpatient mental health care following a psychiatric hospitalization. JAMA 2008; 300: 2879-85.
23. Song Z, Safran DG, Landon BE, et al. Health care spending and quality in year 1 of the alternative quality contract. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 909-18.
24. Abadie A,. Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences estimators. Rev Econ Studies 2005; 72: 1-19. (Pubitemid 40195651)
25. Moser K, Patnick J, Beral V,. Inequalities in reported use of breast and cervical screening in Great Britain: analysis of cross sectional survey data. BMJ 2009; 338: b2025.
26. Olesen SC, Butterworth P, Jacomb P, et al. Personal factors influence use of cervical cancer screening services: epidemiological survey and linked administrative data address the limitations of previous research. BMC Health Serv Res 2012; 12: 34.
27. Fukuda Y, Nakamura K, Takano T, et al. Socioeconomic status and cancer screening in Japanese males: large inequlaity in middle-aged and urban residents. Environ Health Prev Med 2007; 12: 90-6. (Pubitemid 46683346)
28. Duport N, Ancelle-Park R, Boussac-Zarebska M, et al. Are breast cancer screening practices associated with sociodemographic status and healthcare access? Analysis of a French cross-sectional study. Eur J Cancer Prev 2008; 17: 218-24. (Pubitemid 351549661)
29. von Wagner C, Good A, Whitaker KL, Wardle J,. Psychosocial determinants of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation: a conceptual framework. Epidemiol Rev 2011; 33: 135-47.
30. Swan J, Breen N, Graubard BI, et al. Data and trends in cancer screening in the United States: results from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer 2010; 116: 4872-81.
31. Trinczek R,. Income poverty in the European Union. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2007.
32. Baron RC, Rimer BK, Coates RJ, et al. Methods for conducting systematic reviews of evidence on effectiveness and economic efficiency of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. Am J Prev Med 2008; 35: S26-S33. (Pubitemid 351787501)
33. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Census. Available at: http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2010/index.htm (in Japanese).
34. Galobardes B, Shaw M, Lawlor DA, et al. Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 1). J Epidemiol Community Health 2006; 60: 7-12. (Pubitemid 43028623)
35. Harper S, King NB, Meersman SC, et al. Implicit value judgments in the measurement of health inequalities. Milbank Q 2010; 88: 4-29.
36. Harper S, Lynch J,. Selected comparisons of measures of health disparities. NIH Publication No. 07-6281. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2007.
37. Harper S, Lynch J, Meersman SC, et al. An overview of methods for monitoring social disparities in cancer with an example using trends in lung cancer incidence by area-socioeconomic position and race-ethnicity, 1992-2004. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 167: 889-99. (Pubitemid 351521743)
38. Harper S, Lynch J,. Methods for measuring cancer disparities: using data relevant to healthy people 2010 cancer-related objectives. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2005.
39. National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance Research Program and Applied Research Program. Health Disparities Calculator, Version 1.2.1. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/ hdcalc/.
40. Saika K, Saito H, Ohuchi N, et al. The number needed to invite (NNI) for breast cancer mammography screening in Japan. J Jpn Assoc Breast Cancer Screening 2011; 20: 121-6.
41. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The vital statistics. Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2010.
42. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The report of health promotion project. Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2009.
43. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, et al. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2006; 367: 489-98. (Pubitemid 43208905)
44. Baron RC, Rimer BK, Breslow RA, et al. Client-directed interventions to increase community demand for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2008; 35: S34-S55. (Pubitemid 351787500)
45. Baron RC, Melillo S, Rimer BK, et al. Intervention to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers a systematic review of provider reminders. Am J Prev Med 2010; 38: 110-17.
46. Lurie N, Manning WG, Peterson C, et al. Preventive care: do we practice what we preach? Am J Public Health 1987; 77: 801-4. (Pubitemid 17090340)
47. Frohlich KL, Potvin L,. Transcending the known in public health practice: the inequality paradox: the population approach and vulnerable populations. Am J Public Health 2008; 98: 216-21. (Pubitemid 351317555)
48. Adams J, White M, Forman D,. Are there socioeconomic gradients in stage and grade of breast cancer at diagnosis? Cross sectional analysis of UK cancer registry data. BMJ 2004; 329: 142.
49. Victora CG, Vaughan JP, Barros FC, et al. Explaining trends in inequities: evidence from Brazilian child health studies. Lancet 2000; 356: 1093-8.
50. Doran T, Fullwood C, Kontopantelis E, et al. Effect of financial incentives on inequalities in the delivery of primary clinical care in England: analysis of clinical activity indicators for the quality and outcomes framework. Lancet 2008; 372: 728-36.
51. Kiefe CI, McKay SV, Halevy A, et al. Is cost a barrier to screening mammography for low-income women receiving Medicare benefits? A randomized trial. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154: 1217-24. (Pubitemid 24180479)
52. Kuroki H,. Survey on the trends in uterine cervical cancer screening in Japanese women: The efficacy of free coupons in the screening. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2012; 38: 35-9.
53. Bhopal RS,. Re: an overview of methods for monitoring social disparities in cancer with an example using trends in lung cancer incidence by area-socioeconomic position and race-ethnicity, 1992-2004. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 168: 1214-16; author reply 16.
54. Iwasaki M, Yamamoto S, Otani T, et al. Generalizability of relative risk estimates from a well-defined population to a general population. Eur J Epidemiol 2006; 21: 253-62. (Pubitemid 43725482)
55. Delgado-Rodriguez M, Llorca J,. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004; 58: 635-41.
56. Sen A, Foster J,. On economic inequality. Expanded edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
57. Tugwell P, de Savigny D, Hawker G, et al. Applying clinical epidemiological methods to health equity: the equity effectiveness loop. BMJ 2006; 332: 358-61. (Pubitemid 43253756)