Cited by 36Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Attendance at Cervical Cancer Screening and Use of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures on the Uterine Cervix Assessed from Individual Health Insurance Data (Belgium, 2002-2006)

Open access
Arbyn, Marc, Fabri, Valérie, Temmerman, Marleen, Simoens, Cindy·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the coverage for cervical cancer screening as well as the use of cervical cytology, colposcopy and other diagnostic and therapeutic interventions on the uterine cervix in Belgium, using individual health insurance data. METHODS: The Intermutualistic Agency compiled a database containing 14 million records from reimbursement claims for Pap smears, colposcopies, cervical biopsies and surgery, performed between 2002 and 2006. Cervical cancer screening coverage was defined as the proportion of women aged 25-64 that had a Pap smear within the last 3 years. RESULTS: Cervical cancer screening coverage was 61% at national level, for the target population of women between 25 and 64 years old, in the period 2004-2006. Differences between the 3 regions were small, but varied more substantially between provinces. Coverage was 70% for 25-34 year old women, 67% for those aged 35-39 years, and decreased to 44% in the age group of 60-64 years. The median screening interval was 13 months. The screening coverage varied substantially by social category: 40% and 64%, in women categorised as beneficiary or not-beneficiary of increased reimbursement from social insurance, respectively. In the 3-year period 2004-2006, 3.2 million screen tests were done in the target group consisting of 2.8 million women. However, only 1.7 million women got one or more smears and 1.1 million women had no smears, corresponding to an average of 1.88 smears per woman in three years of time. Colposcopy was excessively used (number of Pap smears over colposcopies = 3.2). The proportion of women with a history of conisation or hysterectomy, before the age of 65, was 7% and 19%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The screening coverage increased slightly from 59% in 2000 to 61% in 2006. The screening intensity remained at a high level, and the number of cytological examinations was theoretically sufficient to cover more than the whole target population.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0092615

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [17]Anttila A, Ronco G, Lynge E, Fender M, Arbyn M, et al (2008) Chapter 2: Epidemiological Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. In: Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J, Ronco G, Schenck U et al., editors. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. pp. 11–52.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arbyn, M., Fabri, V., Temmerman, M., & Simoens, C.
Affiliations
  • Institut Scientifique de Santé Publique (BE)
  • Intermutualist Agency (BE)
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
Corresponding author
Arbyn, Marc
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-04-01
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
e92615
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1982089230
Cited by
36
References
39
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4
FWCI
4.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • eCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • European Commission (603019)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
cervical cancer screening, screening coverage, Pap smear, colposcopy, cervical cytology, cervical biopsy, conization, hysterectomy, health insurance claims data, reimbursement, screening frequency, regional variation, Belgium
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Belgium, Biopsy, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cervix Uteri, Colposcopy, Female, Humans, Hysterectomy, Insurance, Health, Middle Aged, Socioeconomic Factors, Incidence, Conization, Early Detection of Cancer, Papanicolaou Test

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review