title: Does social disadvantage affect the validity of self-report for cervical cancer screening?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The aim was to review the international literature on the validity of self-report of cervical cancer screening, specifically of studies that made direct comparisons among women with and without social disadvantage, based on race/ethnicity, foreign-born status, language ability, income, or education.
  
  
  METHODS
  The databases of Medline, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL from 1990 to 2011 were searched using relevant search terms. Articles eligible for data extraction documented the prevalence of cervical cancer screening based on both self-report and an objective measure for women both with and without at least one measure of social disadvantage. The report-to-record ratio, the ratio of the proportion of study subjects who report at least one screening test within a particular time frame to the proportion of study subjects who have a record of the same test within that time frame, was calculated for each subgroup.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Five studies met the extraction criteria. Subgroups were based on race/ethnicity, education, and income. In all studies, and across all subgroups, report-to-record ratios were greater than one, indicative of pervasive over-reporting.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The findings suggest that objective measures should be used by policymakers, researchers, and public-health practitioners in place of self-report to accurately determine cervical cancer screening rates.
authors: Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto ; Department of Family and Community Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto ; Centre for Research on Inner City Health, The Keenan Research Centre in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, Toronto.
authors: Aisha K
authors: AK
authors: Lofters
authors: Rahim
authors: R
authors: Moineddin
authors: Stephen W
authors: SW
authors: Hwang
authors: Richard H
authors: RH
authors: Glazier
keywords: Pap test; early detection of cancer; reproducibility of results; vaginal smears; validity; vulnerable populations
references: Can J Public Health. 2007 Nov-Dec;98(6):470-5
references: 19039885
references: Prev Med. 2009 Feb;48(2):99-107
references: 19118570
references: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004 Mar;13(3):355-60
references: 15006908
references: J Natl Med Assoc. 2004 Dec;96(12):1632-9
references: 15622694
references: J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008 Jul-Aug;17(6):939-46
references: 18582173
references: Cancer Detect Prev. 2006;30(3):292-6
references: 16844320
references: PLoS Med. 2008 Jun 17;5(6):e132
references: 18563963
references: Saudi Med J. 2008 Jul;29(7):1036-40
references: 18626537
references: Am J Prev Med. 1999 Oct;17(3):211-29
references: 10987638
references: Can Fam Physician. 2009 Feb;55(2):178-179.e5
references: 19221082
references: Prev Med. 2004 Aug;39(2):399-403
references: 15226052
references: BMJ. 2009 Jun 16;338:b2025
references: 19531549
references: Ethn Health. 2009 Aug;14(4):337-49
references: 19280443
references: J Immigr Minor Health. 2007 Oct;9(4):323-34
references: 17345152
references: Am J Epidemiol. 1997 Dec 1;146(11):982-92
references: 9400341
references: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Apr;17(4):748-57
references: 18381468
references: Health Serv Res. 2001 Aug;36(4):813-25
references: 11508641
references: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 Jan;21(1):61-5
references: 22144501
references: Cancer Causes Control. 2009 Feb;20(1):1-13
references: 18802779
references: Prev Med. 2002 Nov;35(5):463-73
references: 12431895
references: Womens Health Issues. 2008 Mar-Apr;18(2):85-99
references: 18182305
references: Med Care. 2010 Jul;48(7):611-8
references: 20548258
references: Prev Med. 1995 May;24(3):278-85
references: 7644451
references: BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Sep 29;6:122
references: 17010195
references: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003 Nov;12(11 Pt 1):1182-7
references: 14652278
references: BMJ. 2012 Mar 01;344:e900
references: 22381677