1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cancer Screening Disparities Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional study analyzes changes in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening before and after the COVID-19 pandemic among adults in Ontario, Canada.

          Key Points

          Question

          Did preexisting disparities in cancer screening change after the COVID-19 pandemic?

          Findings

          In this cross-sectional study of 9 471 513 adults in Ontario, Canada, who were eligible for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening before the COVID-19 pandemic, assessed at 2 time points, preexisting disparities in screening for people living in lower-income neighborhoods and for immigrants significantly widened for both breast and colorectal cancer screening.

          Meaning

          Results of this study suggest that policy makers should investigate the value of prioritizing and investing in improving access to team-based primary care for people who are immigrants and/or living with low income.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer–screening disparities existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is unclear whether those have changed since the pandemic.

          Objective

          To assess whether changes in screening from before the pandemic to after the pandemic varied for immigrants and for people with limited income.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This population-based, cross-sectional study, using data from March 31, 2019, and March 31, 2022, included adults in Ontario, Canada, the country’s most populous province, with more than 14 million people, almost 30% of whom are immigrants. At both dates, the screening-eligible population for each cancer type was assessed.

          Exposures

          Neighborhood income quintile, immigrant status, and primary care model type.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          For each cancer screening type, the main outcome was whether the screening-eligible population was up to date on screening (a binary outcome) on March 31, 2019, and March 31, 2022. Up to date on screening was defined as having had a mammogram in the previous 2 years, a Papanicolaou test in the previous 3 years, and a fecal test in the previous 2 years or a flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the previous 10 years.

          Results

          The overall cohort on March 31, 2019, included 1 666 943 women (100%) eligible for breast screening (mean [SD] age, 59.9 [5.1] years), 3 918 225 women (100%) eligible for cervical screening (mean [SD] age, 45.5 [13.2] years), and 3 886 345 people eligible for colorectal screening (51.4% female; mean [SD] age, 61.8 [6.4] years). The proportion of people up to date on screening in Ontario decreased for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers, with the largest decrease for breast screening (from 61.1% before the pandemic to 51.7% [difference, −9.4 percentage points]) and the smallest decrease for colorectal screening (from 65.9% to 62.0% [difference, −3.9 percentage points]). Preexisting disparities in screening for people living in low-income neighborhoods and for immigrants widened for breast screening and colorectal screening. For breast screening, compared with income quintile 5 (highest), the β estimate for income quintile 1 (lowest) was −1.16 (95% CI, −1.56 to −0.77); for immigrant vs nonimmigrant, the β estimate was −1.51 (95% CI, −1.84 to −1.18). For colorectal screening, compared with income quintile 5, the β estimate for quntile 1 was −1.29 (95% CI, 16 −1.53 to −1.06); for immigrant vs nonimmigrant, the β estimate was −1.41 (95% CI, −1.61 to −1.21). The lowest screening rates both before and after the COVID-19 pandemic were for people who had no identifiable family physician (eg, moving from 11.3% in 2019 to 9.6% in 2022 up to date for breast cancer). In addition, patients of interprofessional, team-based primary care models had significantly smaller reductions in β estimates for breast (2.14 [95% CI, 1.79 to 2.49]), cervical (1.72 [95% CI, 1.46 to 1.98]), and colorectal (2.15 [95% CI, 1.95 to 2.36]) postpandemic screening and higher uptake of screening in general compared with patients of other primary care models.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this cross-sectional study in Ontario that included 2 time points, widening disparities before compared with after the COVID-19 pandemic were found for breast cancer and colorectal cancer screening based on income and immigrant status, but smaller declines in disparities were found among patients of interprofessional, team-based primary care models than among their counterparts. Policy makers should investigate the value of prioritizing and investing in improving access to team-based primary care for people who are immigrants and/or with limited income.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care

          The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the spectrum of cancer care, including delaying diagnoses and treatment and halting clinical trials. In response, healthcare systems are rapidly reorganizing cancer services to ensure that patients continue to receive essential care while minimizing exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            AGA Institute Rapid Recommendations for Gastrointestinal Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Ontario's primary care reforms have transformed the local care landscape, but a plan is needed for ongoing improvement.

              Primary care in Ontario, Canada, has undergone a series of reforms designed to improve access to care, patient and provider satisfaction, care quality, and health system efficiency and sustainability. We highlight key features of the reforms, which included patient enrollment with a primary care provider; funding for interprofessional primary care organizations; and physician reimbursement based on varying blends of fee-for-service, capitation, and pay-for-performance. With nearly 75 percent of Ontario's population now enrolled in these new models, total payments to primary care physicians increased by 32 percent between 2006 and 2010, and the proportion of Ontario primary care physicians who reported overall satisfaction with the practice of medicine rose from 76 percent in 2009 to 84 percent in 2012. However, primary care in Ontario also faces challenges. There is no meaningful performance measurement system that tracks the impact of these innovations, for example. A better system of risk adjustment is also needed in capitated plans so that groups have the incentive to take on high-need patients. Ongoing investment in these models is required despite fiscal constraints. We recommend a clearly articulated policy road map to continue the transformation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                20 November 2023
                November 2023
                20 November 2023
                : 6
                : 11
                : e2343796
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Peter Gilgan Centre for Women’s Cancers, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ]ICES Central, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [5 ]Health Services and Policy Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
                [6 ]ICES Queen’s, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
                [7 ]Daphne Cockwell School of Nursing, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [8 ]Department of Family Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: October 8, 2023.
                Published: November 20, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.43796
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2023 Lofters AK et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Aisha K. Lofters, MD, PhD, Women’s College Hospital, 76 Grenville St, Toronto, ON M5S 2B1, Canada ( aisha.lofters@ 123456wchospital.ca ).
                Author Contributions: Ms Wu had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Lofters, Kiran, Green, Glazier.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Lofters, Wu, Frymire, Kiran, Vahabi, Green.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Lofters.
                Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Wu, Frymire, Kiran, Vahabi, Green, Glazier.
                Statistical analysis: Wu, Frymire.
                Obtained funding: Frymire, Green, Glazier.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Frymire, Green.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lofters reported receiving grants from the INSPIRE-Primary Health Care (PHC) research program during the conduct of the study and receiving funding from Ontario Health for being the Provincial Primary Care Lead, Cancer Screening from 2018 to 2022 and an unrestricted quality improvement grant from Pfizer’s Rethink Breast Cancer for the Enhancing the Care Experiences of Black Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer project outside the submitted work. Mr Frymire reported receiving nonfinancial support from INSPIRE-PHC for project management support during the conduct of the study. Dr Kiran reported receiving consulting fees and/or speaker honoraria from Ontario Health, the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario College of Family Physicians, the Canadian Medical Association, and Health Canada. Dr Green reported receiving grants from the Ontario MOH during the conduct of the study; receiving grants from Ontario Health, Ontario College of Family Physicians, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); and personal fees from the College of Family Physicians of Canada outside the submitted work; and being president-elect of the College of Family Physicians of Canada and a board member of AMS Healthcare Inc (a not-for-profit foundation). Dr Glazier reported receiving grants from the INSPIRE-PHC research program and CIHR during the conduct of the study and receiving personal fees from ICES, CIHR, and the MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions and being scientific director of the CIHR and research scientist of the MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario MOH and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. This study was funded, in part, by the INSPIRE-PHC research program, which is funded through the Health Systems Research Program of the Ontario MOH.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The analyses, conclusions, opinions, and statements expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not reflect those of the funding or data sources; no endorsement is intended or should be inferred. The opinions, results, and conclusions reported in this paper are those of the authors and are independent from the funding sources. No endorsement by ICES or the Ontario MOH was intended or should be inferred. Parts of this material are based on data and/or information compiled and provided by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). However, the analyses, conclusions, opinions, and statements expressed in the material are those of the authors and not necessarily those of CIHI.
                Data Sharing Statement: See the Supplement.
                Additional Information: This document used data adapted from the Statistics Canada Postal Code Conversion File, which is based on data licensed from the Canada Post Corporation and/or data adapted from the Ontario MOH Postal Code Conversion File, which contains data copied under license from the Canada Post Corporation and Statistics Canada. Parts of this material are based on data and/or information compiled and provided by the CIHI; the Ontario MOH; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, current to May 5, 2022; and Ontario Health.
                Article
                zoi231273
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.43796
                10660460
                37983033
                36d98a09-f2f4-4891-900a-40989958ef75
                Copyright 2023 Lofters AK et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 17 July 2023
                : 8 October 2023
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

                Comments

                Comment on this article