Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.6.2607

What is the Most Effective Strategy for Improving the Cancer Screening Rate in Japan?  

Sano, Hiroshi (Faculty of Economics, Shiga University)
Goto, Rei (The Hakubi Center of Advanced Research, Graduate School of Economics, Kyoto University)
Hamashima, Chisato (Cancer Screening Assessment and Management Division, Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, National Cancer Center)
Publication Information
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention / v.15, no.6, 2014 , pp. 2607-2612 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background: Cancer screening rates in Japan are much lower than those in Western countries. This study evaluated the relationship between cancer screening rates and strategies used to improve screening rates, and determined which strategy is the most effective. Materials and Methods: All municipalities are responsible for conducting gastric, lung, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screenings in Japan. Of the 1,746 municipalities in total, 92-99% were included in the analyses for each cancer screening. Using national data in 2009, the correlations between cancer screening rates and strategies for improving screening rates of all municipalities, both large (populations of over 30,000) and small (populations of under 30,000), were determined. The strategies used were as follows: sending personal invitation letters, personal visits by community health workers, use of a clinical setting for screening, and free screening. Results: Of all four strategies used to improve cancer screening rates, sending personal invitation letters had the highest correlations with all screening rates, with the exception of breast cancer screening. The partial correlation coefficients linking this strategy with the screening rates in all municipalities were 0.28, 0.32, 0.30, and 0.26 for gastric, lung, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening, respectively. In large municipalities, the correlations between the number of examinees in a clinical setting and the screening rates were also relatively high, particularly for cervical cancer screening (r=0.41). Conclusions: Sending personal invitation letters appears to be particularly effective in improving cancer screening rates in all municipalities. All municipalities should implement a system that sends personal invitation letters for cancer screening. In large municipalities, increasing the availability of screening in a clinical setting is also effective in improving cancer screening rates.
Keywords
Cancer screening; screening rate; strategy to increase participation; correlation; Japan;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Takaku R (2011). Do municipalities want to increase checkup rates of cancer screening tests?: an empirical analysis on the implementation of individual cancer checkup system. Iryo To Shakai, 21, 121-36.   DOI
2 Shimada T, Kato K, Inomata Y, Kikuchi R, Shibuya D (2010b). Evaluation of recall letters and application methods in view of increasing colorectal cancer screening rates. J Gastroenterol Cancer Screen, 48, 655-62.
3 Stockdale S, Keeler E, Duan N, Derose K, Fox S (2000). Cost and cost-effectiveness of a church-based intervention to promote mammography screening. Health Serv Res, 35, 1037-57.
4 Suh M, Choi KS, Lee YY, Park B, Jun JK (2013). Cancer screening in Korea, 2012: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 6459-63.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Takemura S, Sone T, Ohida T, et al (2001). Estimating price elasticities of demand for cancer screening programs: using the willingness to pay the user fee measured by the contingent valuation method. Byoin Kanri, 38, 119-28.
6 Tsunematsu M, Kawasaki H, Masuoka Y, Kakehashi M (2013). Factors affecting breast cancer screening behavior in Japan - assessment using the health belief model and conjoint analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 6041-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Townsend JS, Richardson LC, Steele CB, White DE (2009). Evidence-based interventions and screening recommendations for colorectal cancer in comprehensive cancer control plans: a content analysis. Prev Chronic Dis, 6, 1-9.
8 Watanabe R (2003). An analysis of participation in cancer screening in Japan. Iryo To Shakai, 13, 113-32.
9 Yoshida M, Kondo K, Nakanishi C, Tada T (2012). Interventional study for improvement of lung cancer screening rate. J Med Invest, 59, 127-35.   DOI
10 Sabatino SA, Habarta N, Baron RC (2008) Interventions to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, colorectal cancers by healthcare providers: systematic reviews of provider assessment and feedback and provider incentives. Am J Prev Med, 35, 67-74.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Saywell RM Jr, Champion VL, Skinner CS, Menon U, Daggy J (2004). A cost-effectiveness comparison of three tailored interventions to increase mammography screening. J Womens Health, 13, 909-18.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Saywell RM Jr, Champion VL, Zollinger TM, et al (2003). The cost effectiveness of 5 interventions to increase mammography adherence in a managed care population. Am J Manag Care, 9, 33-44.
13 Shimada T, Kato K, Inomata Y, Kikuchi R, Shibuya D (2010a). Evaluation of recall letters and application methods in view of increasing gastric cancer screening rates. J Gastroenterol Cancer Screen, 48, 647-54.
14 National cancer center (2013). Recommendation for cancer screenings.
15 OECD (2011). StatExtracts.
16 Ministry of Health, Labour, Welfare (2012a). The National Cancer Control Plan.
17 Ministry of Health, Labour, Welfare (2012b). Assessment on progress of the medical care expenditure regulation plan (mid-year/ FY 2010).
18 Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2011). Annual report on municipal finances FY 2009.
19 Osaka City (2010). Cancer screenings in the future in Osaka City.
20 Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E (1998). Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ, 318, 904-8.
21 Sabatino SA, Lawlence B, Elder R, et al (2012). Effectiveness interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. Am J Prev Med, 43, 97-118.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Lee MH, Lee YY, Jung DW, et al (2012). Effectiveness of interventions to increase the participation rate of gastric cancer screening in the republic of Korea: a pilot study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 861-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Hisamichi S, Fukao A, Sugawara N, et al (1991). Evaluation of mass screening programme for stomach cancer in Japan. Cancer Screening, UICC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 357-72.
24 King ES, Rimer BK, Seay J, Balshem A, Engstrom PF (1994). Promoting mammography use through progressive interventions: Is it effective? Am J Public Health, 84, 104-6.   DOI
25 McAvoy BR, Raza R (1991). Can health education increase uptake of cervical smear testing among Asian women? BM J, 302, 833-6.   DOI
26 Kuroki H (2012). Survey on the trends in uterine cervical cancer screening in Japanese women: The efficacy of free coupons in the screening. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 38, 35-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Lobb R, Opdyke KM, McDonnell CJ, et al (2011). Use of evidence-based strategies to promote mammography among medically underserved women. Am J Prev Med, 40, 561-5.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Matsuda T, Monnma T, Oizumi H, et al (2011). Measures to improve the cancer screening rate in Yamagata prefecture. J Gastroenterol Cancer Screen, 49, 252-9.
29 Ministry of Health, Labour, Welfare (2010). Report on regional public health services and health promotion services.
30 Hamashima C, Shibuya D, Yamazaki H, et al (2008). The Japanese guidelines for gastric cancer screening. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 38, 259-67.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Community Preventive Services Task Force (2013). Cancer prevention and control: client-oriented interventions to increase breast, cervical, colorectal cancer screening. [http:// www.thecommunityguide.org/cancer/screening/clientoriented/ index.html ]
32 Frie KG, Ramadas K, Anju G, et al (2013). Determinants of participation in a breast cancer screening trial in Trivandrum District, India. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 7301-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Hamashima C, Aoki D, Miyagi E, et al (2010). The Japanese guideline for cervical cancer screening. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 40, 485-504.   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Baron RC, Rimer BK, Breslow RA, et al (2008b). Client-directed interventions to increase community demand to breast, cervical, colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med, 35, 34-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Hannon PA, Vu T, Ogdon S, et al (2012). Implementation and Process Evaluation of a Workplace Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Eastern Washington. Health Promot Pract, first published on Jul 13.
36 Arisue T, Yasuda I, Eizuka T, et al (2007). Current status and issues for individual cancer screening. J Gastroenterol Cancer Screen, 45, 172-82.
37 Baron RC, Rimer BK, Coates RJ, et al (2008a). Methods for conducting systematic reviews of evidence on effectiveness and economic efficiency of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, colorectal cancers. Am J Prev Med, 35, 26-33.   DOI   ScienceOn
38 Baron RC, Rimer BK, Coates RJ, et al (2008c). Client-directed interventions to increase community access to breast, cervical, colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med, 35, 56-66.   DOI   ScienceOn
39 Blumenthal DS, Smith SA, Majett CD, Alema-Mensah E (2010). A trial of 3 interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening in African Americans. Cancer, 116, 922-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
40 Champion V, Maraj M, Hui S, et al (2003) Comparison of tailored interventions to increase mammography screening in nonadherent older women. Prev Med, 36, 150-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
41 Dolan N, McDermott M, Morrow M, Venta L, Martin G (1999). Impact of same-day screening mammography availability: results of a controlled clinical trial. Arch Intern Med, 159, 393-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
42 Saywell RM Jr, Champion VL, Skinner CS, et al (1999). Costeffectiveness of five interventions to increase mammography screening. Prev Med, 29, 374-82.   DOI   ScienceOn