Search

BackgroundIndividuals living with low income are less likely to participate in lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography. Family physicians (FPs) are typically responsible for referring eligible patients to LCS; therefore, we sought to understand their perspectives on access to lung cancer screening for individuals living with low income in order to improve equity in access to LCS.MethodsA theory-informed thematic analysis was conducted using data collected from 11 semi-structured interviews with FPs recruited from three primary care sites in downtown Toronto. Data was coded using the Systems Model of Clinical Preventative Care as a framework and interpretation was guided by the synergies of oppression analytical lens.ResultsFour overarching themes describe FP perspectives on access to LCS for individuals living with low income: the degree of social disadvantage that influences lung cancer risk and opportunities to access care; the clinical encounter, where there is often a mismatch between the complex health needs of low income individuals and structure of health care appointments; the need for equity-oriented health care, illustrated by the neglect of structural origins of health risk and the benefits of a trauma-informed approach; and finally, the multiprong strategies that will be needed in order to improve equity in health outcomes.ConclusionAn equity-oriented and interdisciplinary team based approach to care will be needed in order to improve access to LCS, and attention must be given to the upstream determinants of lung cancer in order to reduce lung cancer risk.

Background Individuals living with low income are more likely to smoke, have a higher risk of lung cancer, and are less likely to participate in preventative healthcare (i.e., low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening), leading to equity concerns. To inform the delivery of an organized pilot lung cancer screening program in Ontario, we sought to contextualize the lived experiences of poverty and the choice to participate in lung cancer screening. Methods At three Toronto academic primary-care clinics, high-risk screen-eligible patients who chose or declined LDCT screening were consented; sociodemographic data was collected. Qualitative interviews were conducted. Theoretical thematic analysis was used to organize, describe and interpret the data using the morphogenetic approach as a guiding theoretical lens. Results Eight participants chose to undergo screening; ten did not. From interviews, we identified three themes: Pathways of disadvantage (social trajectories of events that influence lung-cancer risk and health-seeking behaviour), lung-cancer risk and early detection (upstream factors that shape smoking behaviour and lung-cancer screening choices), and safe spaces of care (care that is free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas or conversations). We illuminate how ‘choice’ is contextual to the availability of material resources such as income and housing, and how ‘choice’ is influenced by having access to spaces of care that are free of judgement and personal bias. Conclusion Underserved populations will require multiprong interventions that work at the individual, system and structural level to reduce inequities in lung-cancer risk and access to healthcare services such as cancer screening.

Background: The human papillomavirus (HPV) is a common sexually transmitted infection and a primary cause of cervical cancer. The Government of Canada has set a target of reaching 90% HPV vaccine coverage among adolescents by 2025. Here, we examine HPV vaccine uptake in school-based immunization programs across Canada and explore how achieving the 90% target could affect the future incidence of cervical cancer, mortality, and health system expenditures in a cohort of Canadian women. Methods: Data for HPV vaccine uptake in the most recent reported school year available in each jurisdiction were provided in 2017 by jurisdictional school-based immunization programs and were used to estimate a national weighted average of 67%. The OncoSim microsimulation model (version 2.5) was used to compare 3 different levels of HPV vaccine uptake (0%, 67%, 90%) on health and economic outcomes for a hypothetical cohort of all 5- to 10-year-old girls in Canada in 2015. Results: Vaccine uptake for girls in school-based programs varied from 55.0% to 92.0% in the jurisdictions reviewed. The OncoSim model projects that increasing uptake to 90% from 67% would result in a 23% reduction in cervical cancer incidence rates (to 3.1 cases from 4.0 cases per 100,000, averaged across the lifetime of the cohort) and a 23% decline in the average annual mortality rate (to 1.0 deaths from 1.3 deaths per 100,000). Finally, the model projects that the health system will incur a cost of $9 million (1% increase) during the lifetime of the cohort if uptake is increased to 90% from 67%. Costs are discounted (1.5%) and expressed in 2016 Canadian dollars. Costs reflect the payer perspective. Conclusions: Our model shows that increasing HPV vaccine uptake to 90% from current levels for girls in school-based immunization programs could result in substantial reductions in the future incidence and mortality rates for cervical cancer in Canada.