Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Sep 6;55(9):570.
doi: 10.3390/medicina55090570.

Organised Versus Opportunistic Cervical Cancer Screening in Urban and Rural Regions of Lithuania

Affiliations

Organised Versus Opportunistic Cervical Cancer Screening in Urban and Rural Regions of Lithuania

Justina Paulauskiene et al. Medicina (Kaunas). .

Abstract

Background and Objectives: In 2004, Lithuania started the Nationwide Cervical Cancer Screening Programme. However, screening is more opportunistic than population-wide and the programme's coverage is insufficient. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of systematic personal invitation on coverage of cervical cancer (CC) screening in urban and rural regions of Lithuania. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in an urban primary healthcare centre (PHCC) and in a rural PHCC, where prevailing CC screening practice was highly opportunistic. Over the first year, all women aged 25-60 who had not received a Pap smear test within the last three years in urban (n = 1591) and rural (n = 1843) PHCCs received a personal invitation letter to participate in the screening. Over the second year, the reminder letter was sent to the non-attendees (n = 1042 in urban and n = 929 in rural PHCCs). A random sample of women (n = 93), who did not attend for screening after two letters, was contacted by phone in order to identify the barriers of non-attendance. Results: Before the study, only 9.6% of the target population in urban and 14.7% in rural PHCCs participated in CC screening. After the first invitation letter, the participation in CC screening increased up to 24.6% in urban and 30.8% in rural areas (p < 0.001). After the reminder letter, the attendance was 16.4% in urban and 22.2% in rural PHCCs (p < 0.001). The most common barriers for the non-attendance were lack of time, long waiting time for family doctor's appointment, worries that a Pap test might be unpleasant and preventive gynaecological examination outside of the screening program. Conclusions: A systematic personal invitation with one reminder letter significantly increased the coverage of CC screening and was more effective in rural regions than in urban regions. The assessed barriers for non-attendance can be used to improve the coverage of screening.

Keywords: Lithuania; barriers; cervical cancer; non-attendance; place of residence; screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The proportion of invited, non-invited and screened women before the study, after the first personal invitation letter and after reminder letter in urban and rural primary health care centres (PHCC). a p values < 0.001 compared with the coverage of cervical cancer (CC) screening before the study; b p values < 0.001 compared with the coverage of CC screening in Kaunas.

References

    1. Bray F., Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Siegel R.L., Torre L.A., Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 2018;68:394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ferlay J., Colombet M., Soerjomataram I., Dyba T., Randi G., Bettio M., Gavin A., Visser O., Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries and 25 major cancers in 2018. Eur. J. Cancer. 2018;103:356–387. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.07.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arbyn M., Raifu A.O., Weiderpass E., Bray F., Anttila A. Trends of cervical cancer mortality in the member states of the European Union. Eur. J. Cancer. 2009;45:2640–2648. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.07.018. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arbyn M., Anttila A., Jordan J., Ronco G., Schenck U., Segnan N., Wiener H., Herbert A., von Karsa L. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. Second edition—Summary document. Ann. Oncol. 2010;21:448–458. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdp471. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Altobelli E., Lattanzi A. Cervical carcinoma in the European Union: An update on disease burden, screening program state of activation, and coverage as of March 2014. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2015;25:474–483. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000374. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms