Preventive Medicine Reports (Oct 2024)

Individual-level determinants of breast and cervical cancer screening and early testing in two regionally representative urban Indian populations

  • Bryan Min Feng Ooi,
  • Luke Muschialli,
  • Dimple Kondal,
  • Gloria Andia,
  • Ivy Ng Ho Tsun,
  • Helen Ye Rim Huang,
  • Kavita Singh,
  • Aastha Aggarwal,
  • Mohammed K. Ali,
  • Nikhil Tandon,
  • K.M. Venkat Narayan,
  • Viswanathan Mohan,
  • Preet K. Dhillon,
  • Theresa W. Gillespie,
  • D. Prabhakaran,
  • Michael Goodman,
  • Krithiga Shridhar

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 46
p. 102883

Abstract

Read online

Introduction: Region-specific data on individual factors associated with uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening or early testing in diverse Indian populations are limited. Aim: To assess the prevalence and individual determinants of uptake of breast and/or cervical cancer screening or testing among women aged 30–69 years in regionally representative populations of two large Indian cities: New Delhi and Chennai. Methods: We conducted an analysis of the cross-sectional data (2016–2017) nested within the Centre for Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia cohort, established in 2010–2011 with 12,271 participants (5365 in New Delhi; 6906 in Chennai). Among 3310 women participants, we evaluated the associations of demographic, socioeconomic, lifestyle, medical, psychosocial, and reproductive factors with breast and/or cervical cancer screening or testing using multivariable logistic regression models with results expressed as adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: At any point prior to 2016–2017, 193 women self-reported having undergone evaluations for breast and/or cervical cancer. The reasons for evaluation were ‘general examination’ or ‘physician’s advice’ (i.e., screening) or ‘being symptomatic’ (i.e., early testing). The overall prevalence was 5.8% for screening or testing and 2.5% for screening alone. Formal education (OR:1.88; 95% CI:1.12–3.15), high monthly household income (OR:2.27; 95% CI:1.59–3.25) and less ‘fear-of-judgement’ (OR:1.65; 95% CI:1.05–2.58) were positively associated with screening or testing uptake. When screening uptake was analysed separately, the results were generally similar. Conclusion: Our findings may have important implications for interventions at community-level (e.g., reducing ‘fear-of-judgement’, increasing awareness to screening programs and early symptoms) and health-system level (e.g., opportunistic screening).

Keywords