Introduction: Quality assurance and improvement of cancer screening programs require up-to-date monitoring systems and evidence-based indicators. National quality reports exist but the definition and calculation of indicators vary making comparisons between countries difficult. The aim is to stimulate collaborative research and quality improvements in screening through freely available, comparable and regularly updated quality indicators. The project currently includes data on cervical cancer screening but population-based screening programs for breast cancer and colorectal cancer may be included in the future. Material and methods: Through a network of Nordic and Baltic screening managers, populationbased individual screening data from each country were converted to standard format in each collaborative center, aggregated by the same R program script and then uploaded to the NordScreen online platform. Registry data included all cervical tests except for Finland where only tests based on invitation are included. Results: The NordScreen collaboration has so far collated standardized indicators based on 32.8 million screening tests from four Nordic countries and Estonia. Interactive comparison of test coverage and distribution of women by number of tests are currently possible online. In 2016, the test coverage within a time interval of 5.5 years in the age group 30-64 year-olds was between 78 and 84% in Iceland, Norway and Sweden whereas 70% in Finland. The application allows users to choose indicator specifications interactively.Conclusions: NordScreen is a pilot model for comparable, reliable and accessible cross-country comparisons of cancer screening. Comparability between countries is enhanced by a uniform data structure and standardized calculations. The comparison of coverage rates to national figures shows that the methods used nationally and in the NordScreen project produce similar results.
Introduction: Screening has been the primary reason for the decline in the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in the Nordic countries since the beginning of screening in the 1960s. Recently, the incidence of cervical cancer has increased in the Nordic countries indicating the need to look closely at possibilities for further improvement in screening. This article provides an overview of cervical cancer screening programmes in the Nordic countries and whether the programmes adhere to international recommendations. Materials and methods: Relevant and unambiguous screening recommendations were extracted from applicable literature and classified into legal framework, governance, organisation, and monitoring and evaluation. The up-to-date status of screening programmes and adherence to selected recommendations was gathered from official documentation and co-authors representing cervical cancer screening programmes in all the Nordic countries. Results: A total of 168 recommendations were extracted and 54 of them were considered to be unambiguous and relevant. Forty-nine recommendations were included after synthesising similar recommendations. All Nordic countries adhere to recommendations related to legal framework, but adherence was lower with recommendations related to governance and organisation of screening. Monitoring and evaluation are also areas where adherence to recommendations could be improved. Conclusions: The Nordic cervical cancer screening programmes have substantially decreased cancer burden despite not fully adhering to many of the recommendations. The presented gaps in adherence suggest that there is room for improvement in the screening programmes. Establishing clearer governance structures would still increase the ability to manage changes such as implementing HPV testing as the primary screening method or modifying the programme when HPV vaccinated cohorts of women enter the target age for screening.
Aims: Hospitalisations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions are used as an outcome indicator of access to and quality of primary care. Evidence on mortality related to these hospitalisations is scarce. This study analysed the effect of ambulatory care sensitive condition hospitalisations to subsequent mortality and time or geographical trends in the mortality indicating variations in ambulatory care sensitive conditions outcomes. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used individual-level data from national registers concerning ambulatory care sensitive condition hospitalisations. Crude and age-adjusted 365-day mortality rates for the first ambulatory care sensitive condition-related admission were calculated for vaccine-preventable, acute, and chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions separately, and for three time periods stratified by gender. The mortality rates were also compared to mortality in the general Finnish population to assess the excess mortality related to ambulatory care sensitive condition hospitalisations. Results: The data comprised a total of 712,904 ambulatory care sensitive condition hospital admissions with the crude 365-day mortality rate of 14.2 per 100 person-years. Mortality for those hospitalised for vaccine-preventable conditions was approximately 10-fold compared to the general population and four-fold in chronic and acute conditions. Of the 10 most common ambulatory care sensitive conditions, bacterial pneumonia and influenza and congestive heart failure were associated with highest age-standardised mortality rates. Conclusions: Hospitalisations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions were shown to be associated with excess mortality in patients compared to the general population. Major differences in mortality were found between different types of ambulatory care sensitive condition admissions. There were also minor differences in mortality between hospital districts. These differences are important to consider when using preventable hospital admissions as an indicator of primary care performance.
Objective To compare primary test positivity in cytology and human papillomavirus-based screening between different Nordic cervical cancer screening programs using harmonized register data. Methods This study utilized individual-level data available in national databases in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Cervical test data from each country were converted to standard format and aggregated by calculating the number of test episodes for every test result for each calendar year and one-year age group and test method. Test positivity was estimated as the proportion of positive test results of all primary test episodes with a valid test result for “any positive” and “clearly positive” results. Results The age-adjusted rate ratio for any positive test results in primary human papillomavirus-based screening compared to cytology was 1.66 (95% CI 1.64–1.68). The age-adjusted rate ratio for clearly positive test results was 1.02 (95% CI 1.00–1.05). A decreasing rate ratio by age was seen in both any positive and clearly positive test results. Test positivity increased over time in Iceland, Norway, and Sweden but slightly decreased in Finland. Conclusions The probability of any positive test result was higher in human papillomavirus testing than in primary cytology, even though the cross-sectional detection of a clearly positive test result was the same. Human papillomavirus testing can still lead to an improved longitudinal sensitivity through a larger number of follow-up tests and the opportunity to identify women with a persistent human papillomavirus infection. Further research on histologically verified precancerous lesions is needed in primary as well as repeat testing.
Introduction The incidence of and mortality from cancers of the cervix uteri and corpus uteri are underestimated if the presence of uterine cancers, where the exact topography (site of origin) is not specified, is omitted. In this paper we present the corrected figures on mortality from and incidence of cervix and corpus uteri cancers in the Nordic countries by reallocating unspecified uterine cancer deaths and cases to originate either from the corpus uteri or cervix uteri. To further validate the accuracy of reallocation, we also analyzed how well the reallocation captures the changes occurring as the result of a transition in cause of death coding in Norway that took place in 2005. Material and Methods This study uses data available in the NORDCAN database, which contains aggregated cancer data from all the Nordic countries for the years 1960–2016. The unspecified uterine cancer cases and deaths were reallocated to either cervix uteri or corpus uteri based on the estimated probability that follows the distribution of cases and deaths with verified topography. The estimated proportions of cases and deaths for both cancers were calculated for each combination of age group, year, and country as a proportion of cases (and deaths, respectively) with known topography. Annual age‐standardized rates were calculated by direct age‐adjustment. Results The proportions of unspecified uterine cancers were higher in the mortality data than in incidence data, with mean values for 1960–2016 ranging between 5.1% and 26.6% and between 0.2% and 6.8% by country, respectively. In the Nordic countries combined, the reallocation increased the number of cases by 4% and deaths by approximately 20% for both cancers. Finland was the only Nordic country where the mortality rate did not increase substantially after reallocation. Conclusions The reallocation procedure had a significant impact on mortality from cancers of the cervix and corpus uteri for countries where the proportion of cancer deaths coded as uterus, not otherwise specified, is substantial. More effort to validate cause of death data with incidence data from cancer registries is warranted to avoid erroneous conclusions of temporal trends based on uncorrected cancer burden.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.