Factors influencing organized populational screening for colorectal cancer in the Lisbon and Tagus Valley Health Region: a six-year analysis of demographic and organizational influences
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v41i6.14060Palabras clave:
Proyección masiva, Cáncer colorrectal, prueba de sangre oculta en heces;, equidad en salud, accesibilidad a los servicios de saludResumen
Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks third among malignant neoplasms in Portugal, emphasizing the importance of early detection. The initiation of a population-based CRC screening program (CRCSP) in the Lisbon and Tagus Valley Health Region (LTVHR) in 2017 prompted this study to assess and inform health policies. It aims to identify associations between screening participation outcomes, user geodemographics, and organizational features (2017-2022).
Methods: This cross-sectional study analysed 87,223 users aged 50 to 74 undergoing CRCSP in LTVHR, in 3 rounds (2017-2018, 2019-2020, and 2021-2022). We compared screening uptake and test results across sex, age, health centre grouping, unit type, and family physician assignment using chi-square tests and adjusted relative frequency ratios (RFa) derived from a generalized linear model.
Results: Screening participation differed by sex, with a 5.8% higher rate in women (RFa 1.058; CI1.047-1.068). Younger groups exhibited lower adherence, with those aged 50-54, 55-59, and 60-64 showing RFa of 0.826, 0.887, and 0.968, respectively. Family Health Units (FHU) and users with a Family Physician (FP) showed higher participation rates. There was a 37.7% higher RFa in the 1st-round screenings and a 31.4% lower RFa in the 2nd-round. Positivity rates varied among Health Centres Grouping (HCG), with no differences by health unit type or FP assignment. Most screened users belonged to specific HCG (63.6%), particularly HCG 1, indicating potential organizational influences.
Descargas
Referencias
1. Sawicki T, Ruszkowska M, Danielewicz A, Niedźwiedzka E, Arłukowicz T, Przybyłowicz KE. A review of colorectal cancer in terms of epidemiology, risk factors, development, symptoms and diagnosis. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(9):2025.
2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Goding Sauer A, Fedewa SA, Butterly LF, Anderson JC, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(3):145-64.
3. Segnan N, Patnick J, von Karsa L, editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis [homepage]. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2012. Available from: https://op.europa.eu/pt/publication-detail/-/publication/e1ef52d8-8786-4ac4-9f91-4da2261ee535
4. Miranda N, Portugal C, Nogueira PJ, Farinha CS, Oliveira AL, Soares AP, et al. Doenças oncológicas em números – 2015. Lisboa: Direção-Geral da Saúde; 2016.
5. Grobbee EJ, Wisse PH, Schreuders EH, van Roon A, van Dam L, Zauber AG, et al. Guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests versus faecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;6(6):CD009276.
6. Grazzini G, Visioli CB, Zorzi M, Ciatto S, Banovich F, Bonanomi AG, et al. Immunochemical faecal occult blood test: number of samples and positivity cutoff. What is the best strategy for colorectal cancer screening? Br J Cancer. 2009;100(2):259-65.
7. Ponti A, Anttila A, Ronco G, Senore C, Basu P, Segnan N, et al. Cancer screening in the European Union (2017): report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on cancer screening. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2017.
8. Ding H, Lin J, Xu Z, Wang HH, Huang L, Huang J, et al. The association between organised colorectal cancer screening strategies and reduction of its related mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2024;24(1):365.
9. Serviço Nacional de Saúde. Rastreio cancro do cólon e reto [homepage]. Lisboa: Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo; 2018 [cited 2023 Mar 23]. Available from: https://www.arslvt.min-saude.pt/programas-de-rastreio/rastreio-do-cancro-do-colon-e-do-reto/
10. Carrapiço EI, Correia AR, Monteiro BR. Development of clinical and health governance: primary health care in the Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region. Cien Saude Colet. 2025;30(7):e21562024.
11. Jessiman-Perreault G, Law J, Adhikari K, Machado AA, Moysey B, Xu L, et al. Geospatial analysis and participant characteristics associated with colorectal cancer screening participation in Alberta, Canada: a population-based cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):1454.
12. Sun J, March S, Ireland MJ, Crawford-Williams F, Goodwin B, Hyde MK, et al. Socio-demographic factors drive regional differences in participation in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: an ecological analysis. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2018;42(1):92-7.
13. Mansouri D, McMillan DC, Grant Y, Crighton EM, Horgan PG. The impact of age, sex and socioeconomic deprivation on outcomes in a colorectal cancer screening programme. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66063.
14. Lim MT, Lim YM, Tong SF, Sivasampu S. Age, sex and primary care setting differences in patients' perception of community healthcare seeking behaviour towards health services. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0224260.
15. Lin JS, Perdue LA, Henrikson NB, Bean SI, Blasi PR. Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;325(19):1978-98. Erratum in: JAMA. 2021;326(3):279.
16. Selby K, Levine EH, Doan C, Gies A, Brenner H, Quesenberry C, et al. Effect of sex, age, and positivity threshold on fecal immunochemical test accuracy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2019;157(6):1494-505.
17. Granja M, Correia S, Alves L. Access to general practitioners during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal: a nationwide survey of doctors. BMC Prim Care. 2023;24(1):46. Erratum in: BMC Prim Care. 2023;24(1):258.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Los autores otorgan a RPMGF el derecho exclusivo de publicar y distribuir en medios físicos, electrónicos, de radiodifusión u otros medios que pueda existir el contenido del manuscrito identificado en esta declaración. También otorgan a RPMGF el derecho de usar y explorar el presente manuscrito, es decir, de ceder, vender o licenciar su contenido. Esta autorización es permanente y entra en vigor desde el momento en que se envía el manuscrito, tiene la duración máxima permitida por la legislación portuguesa o internacional aplicable y tiene un alcance mundial. Los autores declaran además que esta transferencia se realiza de forma gratuita. Si la RPMGF informa a los autores que ha decidido no publicar su manuscrito, la cesión exclusiva de derechos cesa inmediatamente.
Los autores autorizan a RPMGF (oa una entidad que éste designe) a actuar en su nombre cuando considere que existe una infracción a los derechos de autor.
