title: Papanicolaou test utilization and frequency of screening opportunities among women diagnosed with cervical cancer.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Although the importance of Papanicolaou (Pap) smear test screening in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer is well established, in 1994-95 one in 4 women in Manitoba aged 18 to 69 years reported never having had a Pap test or not having had a Pap test in the last 3 years. The objectives of this study were to examine the screening history of women in Manitoba diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer and to explore whether opportunities for screening were missed.
  
  
  METHODS
  In this case-control study women aged 18 years and older who resided in Manitoba and were diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer between 1989 and 2001 were each matched by age and area of residence to 5 controls, (N = 4009). Conditional logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between Pap test utilization and the likelihood of diagnosis with invasive cervical cancer. Generalized linear models using the negative binomial distribution were used to assess the association between cancer status and rates of prior Pap testing and of opportunities to be screened. Logistic generalized estimating equation models were used for the analysis of physician characteristics.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Forty-six percent of women in Manitoba diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer and 67% of the control group had received a Pap test in the 5 years before the case's diagnosis. After adjustment for age, income and residence, the rate of Pap testing was significantly higher in the control group (rate ratio [RR] = 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44-1.73). Conversely, when cervical cancer was the outcome, women who had not had Pap tests were more likely to be diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 2.77, 95% CI 2.30-3.30) than women who did have a Pap test. Although women diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer had fewer Pap tests, they had had as many opportunities to be screened as controls (RR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.96-1.12). Compared with urban family physicians, rural family physicians were less likely to provide Pap tests (OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.80) and specialists were more likely to provide Pap tests (OR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.30-2.22).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Women who were diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer in the province of Manitoba, Canada, had fewer Pap tests but the same frequency of opportunities to be screened as matched controls. These results reinforce the need to educate women about cervical cancer screening and the importance of receiving Pap tests.
authors: Kathleen
authors: K
authors: Decker
authors: Alain
authors: A
authors: Demers
authors: Daniel
authors: D
authors: Chateau
authors: Grace
authors: G
authors: Musto
authors: Zoann
authors: Z
authors: Nugent
authors: Robert
authors: R
authors: Lotocki
authors: Marion
authors: M
authors: Harrison
references: Fam Med. 1992 Jan;24(1):58-61
references: 1520350
references: Ethn Dis. 2002 Spring;12(2):268-75
references: 12019937
references: J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(6):531-41
references: 3385455
references: N Engl J Med. 1993 Aug 12;329(7):478-82
references: 8332153
references: Am J Public Health. 1980 Apr;70(4):418-20
references: 7361964
references: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000 Jun;9(6):597-603
references: 10868695
references: Am J Prev Med. 1996 Sep-Oct;12(5):345-50
references: 8909645
references: Med Care. 1995 Apr;33(4):407-16
references: 7731281
references: Health Serv Res. 1991 Apr;26(1):97-107
references: 2016170
references: Am J Public Health. 1995 Jun;85(6):791-4
references: 7762711
references: J Community Health. 1999 Apr;24(2):115-30
references: 10202691
references: Cancer. 2003 Nov 1;98(9):1811-21
references: 14584062
references: Br J Cancer. 1996 Apr;73(8):1001-5
references: 8611418
references: Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997 Mar;121(3):211-24
references: 9111103
references: J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2003 Jan-Feb;12(1):73-80
references: 12639371
references: Cancer Pract. 1998 Sep-Oct;6(5):289-95
references: 9767349
references: J Fam Pract. 1990 Apr;30(4):441-6
references: 2324696
references: Am J Public Health. 1995 Jun;85(6):795-800
references: 7762712
references: Health Rep. 1998 Summer;10(1):9-19(ENG); 9-21(FRE)
references: 9836887
references: Health Serv Res. 2005 Apr;40(2):389-400
references: 15762898
references: Can J Public Health. 1994 Mar-Apr;85(2):125-7
references: 8012915
references: Med Care. 1999 Jun;37(6 Suppl):JS264-78
references: 10409013
references: J Gen Intern Med. 1997 Jan;12(1):34-43
references: 9034944
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Mar 1;148(5):685-90
references: 6702934
references: JAMA. 1994 Aug 17;272(7):530-4
references: 8046807
references: Health Policy. 2005 Aug;73(2):194-201
references: 15978962
references: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2001 Jan-Feb;11(1):24-31
references: 11285030
references: CMAJ. 1997 Sep 1;157(5):513-9
references: 9294389
references: Ann Epidemiol. 1993 Jan;3(1):93-8
references: 8287163
references: Can J Public Health. 2001 Mar-Apr;92(2):127-33
references: 11338151
references: Am J Public Health. 1991 Jul;81(7):885-90
references: 2053665
references: Am J Public Health. 1989 Jan;79(1):21-6
references: 2909176
references: Prev Med. 1999 Apr;28(4):418-25
references: 10090871
references: Prev Med. 1999 Apr;28(4):395-406
references: 10090869
references: Am J Prev Med. 1991 Jul-Aug;7(4):219-26
references: 1756058