Factors associated with participation in the organized cervical cancer screening program in the greater Paris area (France): An analysis among more than 200,000 women

Cervical cancer screening pathways in France in 2015–2021, a nationwide study based on medico-administrative data

“…Our findings were in line with the literature: older women and women living in deprived areas were less likely to be screened opportunistically ( Menvielle et al, 2014 , Limmer et al, 2014 , Luque et al, 2018 ; Barré et al, 2017 ), and also in the organised CCS programme ( Audiger et al, 2021 Dec ).…”

Evaluation of the severity of screened colorectal cancer in the context of the health crisis linked to COVID19 in Ile-de-France region

“…The main limitation of this study is related to the fact that the multivariate analysis of the relationship between CRC severity and time to colonoscopy was not exhaustive regarding all the explanatory variables described in the literature, particularly the social deprivation index. In Ile-de-France, the negative impact of this index was shown with regard to another screening program [34] . However, this limitation does not affect the quality of the regression analysis insofar as the univariate relationship proved between severity and time to colonoscopy was not affected by the multivariate analysis.…”

The effect of extended participation windows on attendance at cervical cancer screening

“…Nevertheless, many countries with established programs, such as France, Denmark, and the Netherlands, have national coverage rates that fall short of the 70% threshold recommended by the World Health Organization to ensure an efficient CCS program (Maver and Poljak, 2020; Coverage of national cervical cancer screening program, 2022;World Health Organization, 2021). This is problematic when we consider that invasive disease in such countries presents mostly in women who do not take part in screening (Arbyn et al, 2018;Bos et al, 2006), with low participation observed particularly in younger women, immigrants, and those of low socioeconomic status (Aitken et al, 2021;Audiger et al, 2021;Harder et al, 2018).…”

“…However, the definition of the time interval is arbitrary and can change by country. Most studies in Europe have defined participation using time windows of 12 months after an invitation (Aitken et al, 2021;Audiger et al, 2021;Hermens et al, 2000), whereas the Dutch CCS estimates the participation rate using a 15-month window from the start of the invitation year (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 2017). However, evidence from a recent report has indicated that a short time window for monitoring the Dutch CCS might not be enough to capture all participation, especially since implementing the new high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-based screening program that introduced many organizational changes (Aitken, 2021).…”