Barriers and Expectations for Patients in Post-Osteoporotic Fracture Care in France: The EFFEL Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to quantify the relative importance of barriers to better secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures and of care expectations expressed by patients with osteoporotic fractures in France. METHODS: A qualitative exploration of potential barriers to care and expectations was undertaken through a systematic literature review and in-depth patients interviews. A list of 21 barriers and 21 expectations was identified. These were presented to 324 subjects with osteoporotic fractures, identified in a representative sample of the French population, in the form of best-worst scaling questionnaires. Patients rated the relative importance of the attributes, and arithmetic mean importance scores were calculated and ranked. A Bayesian hierarchical model was also performed to generate a relative importance score. Latent class analysis was performed to identify potential subgroups of patients with different response profiles. RESULTS: A total of 7 barriers were rated as the most important, relating to awareness of osteoporosis and coordination of care. The highest-ranked barrier, "my fracture is not related to osteoporosis," was significantly more important than all the others (mean importance score 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.56). A similar ranking of attributes was obtained with both the arithmetic and the Bayesian approach. For expectations, no clear hierarchy of attributes was identified. Latent class analysis discriminated 3 classes of respondents with significant differences in response profiles (the educated environmentalists, the unaware, and the victims of the system). CONCLUSIONS: Better quality of care of osteoporosis and effective secondary fracture prevention will require improvements in patient education, training of healthcare professionals, and coordination of care.

Managing Cow's Milk Protein Allergy with an Extensively Hydrolyzed Formula: Results from a Prospective, Non-Interventional Study in France (EVA Study).

Symptoms related cow's milk proteins allergy (CMPA) usually improve between two to four weeks following an elimination diet, firstly with extensively hydrolyzed formulas (eHF). The aim of the EVA study was to observe the evolution of CMPA-related symptoms in real life after initiation of a whey-based extensively hydrolyzed formula (w-eHF, Althéra®, Nestlé Health Science, Switzerland). This cross-sectional prospective non-interventional study was carried out alongside paediatricians in private practice in France between June 2019 and June 2020. Infants aged 0−3 years presenting with confirmed diagnosis or clinical symptoms suggesting CMPA were enrolled. Data were collected at enrolment (baseline visit) and three to five weeks later (follow-up visit). Symptoms were assessed using the Cow's Milk-related Symptom Score (CoMiSS®). The per protocol population included 135 infants. The average number of symptoms per infant significantly decreased under the study formula (from 2.81 to 1.36, p < 0.001) and the proportions of infants with any CMPA related symptoms decreased. Daily crying and regurgitation showed the largest decline, respectively −44.4% and −31.85% (p < 0.001). These results describe the early management of symptoms suspected to be related to CMPA in routine practice that was rarely described in the literature. The number and severity of symptoms decreased most of the cases after commencing the study formula.

Self-reported asthma prevalence and management in adults in France in 2018: ASTHMAPOP survey.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of epidemiological data on asthma classified by disease severity in France. The ASTHMAPOP cross-sectional study aimed to review the prevalence and current management of asthma in people aged ≥18 years in France. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 19 676 people representative of the French population in age, gender, region, and socio-economic status. Asthma was classified by treatment steps per the 2017 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) report, according to prescribed treatments. Analyses were mostly descriptive. RESULTS: The questionnaire return rate was 81.7% (n = 16 083), and 15 587 questionnaires were analyzed. The prevalence of lifetime asthma was 12.8% (95% confidence interval (CI):12.3-13.3%; n = 1 989) in 2018. The prevalence of current asthma (i.e., 12 months before the survey) was 6.4% (95% CI: 6.0-6.8%; n = 993); most of these respondents (95.3% [n = 946]) were receiving asthma treatment, and 49.4% (n = 491) were treated for mild asthma (GINA step 1 or 2). Of people with current asthma, 47.6% reported ≥1 asthma exacerbation in the past 12 months-defined as episodes (several days) during which symptoms (cough, sputum, and dyspnea) were worse than usual; 14.3% had ≥1 emergency visit, and 3.1% had ≥1 hospitalization due to asthma. Of those taking continuous asthma controller medications who answered all Morisky Medication Adherence Scale questions (n = 501), 46.4% were adherent (score=4) to their treatment regimen. Based on the 6-item Asthma Control Questionnaire scores, asthma was partially controlled or uncontrolled in 47.7% of 969 people. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of asthma in France has remained stable since 2006, but levels of asthma control and treatment adherence continue to be relatively poor. Asthma management in France requires improvement.

Quality of life in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in France: results from a French cross-sectional study.

In recent years, treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has improved substantially, leading to longer survival. This has necessitated a greater focus on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), but data are lacking. In a part-prospective, part-retrospective study, we enrolled 219 adults with ALL in France to assess the impact of key disease and treatment characteristics on HRQoL. Overall HRQoL and most specific QoL domain scores were consistently better among patients receiving front-line therapy, those currently in complete remission, and those who had previously received hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Furthermore, HRQoL was consistently impaired in patients with minimal residual disease present (MRD+). In multivariate analyses, multiple lines of therapy, MRD+, leukopenia, comorbidities, and anemia were significantly associated with impaired HRQoL. This study provides real-world data on HRQoL in adults with ALL in France and shows the positive impact of MRD-negative status on HRQoL.

Knowledge of bladder cancer in the French population: results of the EDIFICE 6 survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess awareness of bladder cancer (BCa) in France. METHODS: The French nationwide observational survey EDIFICE 6 was conducted online (26 June-28 July 2017) in 12,046 individuals (age, 18-69 years). The present analysis focuses on laypersons' knowledge of the severity and frequency of BCa, signs and symptoms, associated risk factors and screening tests. Quantitative data were expressed as means and standard deviation, and categorical data as percentages. RESULTS: Analyses were conducted on 11,313 questionnaires. Among the top five acknowledged risk factors for BCa, tobacco was ranked as having the second lowest impact (5.9/10 [2.5]). Only 28% of the study population were aware that active tobacco smoking is a major risk factor for BCa (rating ≥8/10); 61% of the study population was unaware of the existence of any signs or symptoms of BCa, and 69% was not able to cite any of the most widely used diagnostic tests. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the French population has a poor knowledge of BCa risk factors, early signs and diagnostic tests. Effective prevention of BCa requires dissemination of clear information and prevention messages to the lay population, focusing particularly on tobacco consumption and early signs of the disease.

Factors associated with compliance to cervical cancer screening in France: The EDIFICE 6 survey.

INTRODUCTION: A nationwide cervical cancer (CC) screening program was implemented in France in 2018. Asymptomatic women are invited for a cytological test once every 3 years (age, 25-29 years), and an HPV test every 5 years (age, 30-65 years). We investigated the characteristics of women who are resistant to CC screening. METHODS: Since 2005, the EDIFICE survey program has assessed attitudes toward cancer screening in France. The 6th edition (2017) included 12,046 representative women (age, 18-69 years). Social vulnerability was assessed using the EPICES score. Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis identified factors correlated with nonuptake of CC screening. RESULTS: Questionnaires from 4499 women (age, 25-65 years) with no history of cancer were analyzed; 88% (N = 3960) reported at least one test in their lifetime, and 73% (N = 3262) did the test in the previous 3 years. Compared to ever-screened women, never-screened women were younger (38 ± 11 yrs. vs 44 ± 12 yrs., P < 0.05), and more likely to be single (48% vs 20%, P < 0.05) and/or socially vulnerable (59% vs 38%, P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, items significantly (P < 0.05) associated with never screening included living alone (OR = 2.26, 95% CI [1.85-2.75]) and social vulnerability (OR = 1.95 [1.59-2.40]). Women who were not compliant with recommendations were more likely to be older (mean age, 49.2 yrs. vs. 43.2 yrs), living alone (single, widowed or divorced, 40% vs. 30%, P < 0.05), and/or socially vulnerable (55% vs. 35%, P < 0.05; OR = 1.78, 95% CI [1.49-2.12]). CONCLUSION: This analysis identified several factors associated with never screening and under-screening. Effective prevention messages should specifically target these populations.

Patient perspectives on supportive care in cancer: Results of the Calista 2 study.

OBJECTIVE: Over recent decades, supportive care and patient quality of life, advocated by dedicated guidelines, have become a core focus of the concept of integrative medicine. The Calista 2 survey was conducted in France between September 2016 and October 2017 among oncologists and their patients being treated for early breast cancer, adjuvant colorectal cancer or advanced lung cancer. The present analysis sought to ascertain, understand and rank the expectations of cancer patients with regard to supportive care. METHODS: Data were collected from 467 questionnaires from patients recruited by 82 oncologists. Inclusion criteria were patients already on treatment for breast cancer, colorectal cancer or lung cancer. Most supportive care facilities were available at the point of care. RESULTS: Physicians were mainly seen to offer management of adverse events (81%), and pain (72%), psychological support (56%), and advice on diet/nutrition (49%). Patient uptake of supportive care related essentially to management of adverse events (72%) and pain (61%), diet/nutrition (34%), and self-image improvement techniques (31%). The main unmet needs voiced by patients were information on complementary medicines (28%), management of fatigue (27%), and relaxation techniques (24%). CONCLUSION: Supportive care was essentially seen to satisfy patient requirements with regard to the management of adverse events and pain. However, patients highlighted the need for a wider access to fatigue management and information on complementary medicine and relaxation techniques.

Real-world care for individuals aged over fifty with fractures in France: Evidence for a wide care gap-The EPIFRACT Study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the care trajectories of adults aged ≥50 years with fragility fractures in France. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to 15,000 individuals aged ≥50 years extracted from a representative panel of the French population (METASKOPE) in April-May 2018. Respondents experiencing a single fragility fracture in the previous three years constituted the study population. Information was collected regarding diagnosis, hospitalisations, physician visits and treatment related to the fractures. RESULTS: 13,914 participants returned a questionnaire (92.8%), of whom 436 reported a single fragility fracture. Their mean age was 68.7±10.3 years. 11.9% of this sample had undergone bone densitometry (DXA) prior to the fracture and 11.9% had received a diagnostic of osteoporosis. Following the fracture, a further 17.4% underwent DXA and 8.5% were diagnosed with osteoporosis. 74.3% of fractures were initially managed in an emergency department and 29.6% led to immediate hospitalisation. Prior to fracture, 3.4% received a specific anti-osteoporotic treatment, 10.1% vitamin D and 6.4% calcium supplementation. After the fracture, these figures rose to 10.8%, 26.8% and 19.0% respectively. 86.2% participants made at least one follow-up visit to a physician. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of DXA screening following fragility fractures in subjects over fifty is very low. Most patients with fragility fractures did not receive a diagnosis of osteoporosis. The proportion of patients treated with a specific anti-osteoporotic treatment after a fracture is low even though around half consulted their general practitioner after the fracture. Practice guidelines are thus not being adhered to in everyday clinical practice in France.

Fragility fractures in France: epidemiology, characteristics and quality of life (the EPIFRACT study).

Between 1 and 2% of people aged 50 years and over living at home in France are likely to experience a fragility fracture each year. Three-quarters of these individuals are not diagnosed with osteoporosis and lose the opportunity for appropriate care. PURPOSE: To estimate the incidence of fragility fractures in France and to describe the characteristics of individuals with such fractures and of their fractures. METHODS: In April-May 2018, a postal survey was performed in France targeting a representative panel of 15,000 individuals aged ≥ 50 years, who were invited to complete a questionnaire. If they reported experiencing a fracture in the previous 3 years, they were asked to provide information on demographics, fracture type, risk factors for fractures and osteoporosis diagnosis. Only fragility fractures were considered, and these were classified as major (associated with increased mortality) or minor, based on the fracture site. RESULTS: Around 13,914 panellists returned an exploitable questionnaire (92.8%). About 425 participants reported ≥ 1 fragility fracture (453 fractures), corresponding to a 12-month incidence rate of 1.4% [95%CI: 1.2, 1.6]. Incidence was higher in women (1.99% [1.87, 2.05]) than in men (0.69% [0.38, 0.86]) and increased with age. Around 157 fractures (34.6%) were classified as major. Participants reporting major fractures were older than those reporting minor fractures (mean age: 72.6 ± 11.3 vs 67.1 ± 10.6) and more likely to report previous corticosteroid use (odds ratio: 1.90 [95%CI: 1.13, 3.18]). No other patient characteristic was associated with fracture severity. About 117 participants with fractures (27.5%) had undergone bone densitometry, and 97 (22.8%) declared having received a diagnosis of osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: Around 340,000 people aged ≥ 50 years living at home in France are estimated to experience osteoporotic fractures each year. However, > 75% of panellists reporting fractures were never diagnosed with osteoporosis and thus did not have the opportunity to receive appropriate care.

Patient-Reported Outcome in Two Chronic Diseases: A Comparison of Quality of Life and Response Profiles in Severe Migraine and Severe Asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine and asthma are two frequent, disabling, chronic disorders with a major impact on patient well-being. The objectives of this study were to compare subjective well-being between patients with severe forms of migraine or asthma using a panel of PROs. METHODS: Adult patients were recruited during routine consultations with chest physicians or neurologists. Patients with severe migraine (reporting headaches on ≥8 days/month and having failed ≥2 prophylactic treatments) and patients with severe asthma (according to the 2017 GINA definition: requiring Step 4 or 5 treatment or presenting uncontrolled symptoms) were eligible. Each patient completed the EuroQol Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD). Patients with severe migraine the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and those with severe asthma completed the Asthma Control Test (ACT). RESULTS: 249 patients with severe migraine and 96 with severe asthma were enrolled. Mean EQ-5D-5L utility scores were significantly higher in the severe migraine group than in the severe asthma group (0.75±0.25 vs 0.68±0.26; p<0.01). Low EQ-5D-5L utility scores were associated with frequent (≥15 headache days/month) or disabling (HIT-6 score ≥60) headaches and with poor asthma control. Patients with severe migraine more frequently presented a HAD depression score ≥11 (23.0% in severe migraine; 7.5% in severe asthma; p<0.01), whereas those with severe asthma more frequently reported problems with mobility, self-care and usual activities. Absenteeism (percent worktime missed) was similar in both groups (severe migraine: 9.0%±19.1%; severe asthma: 13.8%±22.9%) but work impairment was higher in the severe migraine group (44.3% vs 28.4%; p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Quality of life, work activity and psychological distress are all deteriorated in both severe migraine and severe asthma. Different aspects are affected in the two diseases: a greater impact on psychological aspects in severe migraine and a greater impact on physical aspects in severe asthma.

Health-Related Quality of Life of Patients With Multiple Myeloma Treated in Routine Clinical Practice in France.

INTRODUCTION: New therapies for multiple myeloma (MM) have improved life expectancy, but health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data from patients with MM in the real-world setting are lacking. This study, conducted in France, explored the associations between treatment outcomes and HRQoL in patients with MM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study enrolled patients (≥ 18 years old) with symptomatic MM who had consulted a physician at least once between February and March 2016. HRQoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the Quality of Life Multiple Myeloma module (QLQ-MY20). RESULTS: In total, 445 patients were included in the study; 402 (90%) completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 questionnaires. HRQoL decreased significantly with treatment line. Patients in the first treatment-free interval had relatively high scores. At later lines, patients receiving active treatment had better scores than those whose treatment had ended. High EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scores were associated with good treatment response, few adverse events, and long duration of treatment, and were strongly influenced by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Global health status scores correlated well with the 4 items of the QLQ-MY20 (future perspective, 0.46; body image, 0.41; disease symptoms, -0.57; side effects of treatment, -0.53). CONCLUSION: Effective treatment options in MM can help maintain HRQoL by influencing treatment response levels and delaying disease progression.

Beliefs and behavior regarding e-cigarettes in a large cross-sectional survey.

Although e-cigarette use is increasing dramatically, numerous concerns persist regarding toxicity and their role in smoking cessation. We assessed beliefs and behavior regarding e-cigarettes in an adult French population. The 4th French nationwide observational survey, EDIFICE 4, was conducted among representative samples of 1602 laypersons (age, 40-75 years) from 12 June-10 July 2014, using the quota method. Profile, beliefs and behavior were assessed by phone interviews of the participating lay population with no history of cancer (N = 1463). Tobacco use, nicotine dependence (Fagerström test) and e-cigarette use were assessed. E-cigarette users represented 6% of the study lay population. E-cigarette users regarded e-cigarettes as helpful for quitting tobacco smoking and reducing the risk of lung cancer. Current dual users (e-cigarettes + cigarettes) were more likely to attempt to quit than current exclusively cigarette smokers (odds ratio, 3.15 [1.74-5.70]), and to consider themselves at higher risk for lung cancer (OR 3.85 [2.47-5.99]). They also considered e-cigarette vapor to be less toxic than tobacco smoke in terms of both active and passive exposure. Dual users typically consider themselves at higher risk for cancer and intend to quit smoking. Physicians should be made aware of this specific sub-population for whom e-cigarettes may be a useful trigger in the smoking cessation process.

Decline in Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Populations? Results of the EDIFICE Surveys.

BACKGROUND: We studied cancer screening over time and social vulnerability via surveys of representative populations. METHODS: Individuals aged 50-75 years with no personal history of cancer were questioned about lifetime participation in screening tests, compliance (adherence to recommended intervals [colorectal, breast and cervical cancer]) and opportunistic screening (prostate and lung cancer). RESULTS: The proportion of vulnerable/non-vulnerable individuals remained stable between 2011 and 2016. In 2011, social vulnerability had no impact on screening participation, nor on compliance. In 2014, however, vulnerability was correlated with less frequent uptake of colorectal screening (despite an organised programme) and prostate cancer screening (opportunistic), and also with reduced compliance with recommended intervals (breast and cervical cancer screening). In 2016, the trends observed in 2014 were substantiated and even extended to breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening uptakes. Social vulnerability has an increasingly negative impact on cancer screening attendance. The phenomenon was identified in 2014 and had expanded by 2016. CONCLUSION: Although organised programmes have been shown to ensure equitable access to cancer screening, this remains a precarious achievement requiring regular monitoring. Further studies should focus on attitudes of vulnerable populations and on ways to improve cancer awareness campaigns.

Fluctuating Behavior of the French Population in Cancer Screening: 5th Edition of the EDIFICE Survey.

BACKGROUND: The EDIFICE surveys have assessed cancer screening behavior in the French population since 2005. METHODS: The 2016 edition was conducted among a representative sample of 1501 individuals (age, 50-75 years). The current analysis focuses on breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, and cervical cancer screening. RESULTS: The rate of women (50 to 74 years) declaring having had at least one breast cancer screening test in their lifetime remained stable and high between 2005 and 2016. Compliance with recommended screening intervals improved between 2005 and 2011 from 75 to 83%, respectively, then decreased significantly to 75% in 2016 (P = 0.02). Uptake of at least one lifetime colorectal cancer screening test procedure declared (individuals aged 50-74 years) increase from 25% in 2005 to 59% in 2011, stabilized at 60% in 2014, then reached 64% in 2016. Opportunistic prostate cancer screening (men aged 50-75 years) rose between 2005 and 2008 from 36 to 49%, plateaued until 2014 then dropped to 42% in 2016. The proportion of women aged 50-65 declaring having undergone one cervical cancer screening test dropped significantly between 2014 and 2016 from 99 to 94% (P < 0.01). Lastly, 11% of our survey population in 2014 and 2016 (55-74 years) declared having already undergone lung cancer screening. CONCLUSION: Cancer screening behavior fluctuates in France, regardless of the context, i.e., organized programs or opportunistic screening. This observation highlights the need for constant analysis of population attitudes to optimize public awareness campaigns.

[Cancer screening in France: 10 years of analysis of behaviours by the EDIFICE surveys]. / Dépistage du cancer en France : 10 ans d'analyse des comportements par les enquêtes EDIFICE.

Accessibility to cancer screening in France has been facilitated by the implementation of organised programs (breast cancer and colorectal cancer) and by national recommendations (cervical cancer). Personal motivation may also trigger participation in prostate cancer screening. This paper proposes an overview of attitudes toward cancer screening among the general population over a period of more than 10 years and the perception of this behaviour by general practitioners. It is noteworthy that although certain cancer screening programmes, such as for breast cancer, are widely established throughout the population, uptake of others, such as for colorectal or prostate cancer, is contingent on sociological factors and vulnerability. Monitoring of compliance is thus all the more important since participation may be more acutely affected by the impact of social conditions and vulnerability in the current critical economic climate.

Cancer screening in France: third edition of the EDIFICE survey.

The EDIFICE programme began in 2005 and set out to provide a clearer insight over time into the participation of the French population in cancer screening. EDIFICE 3 was conducted in 2011 by phone interviews among a representative sample of 1603 individuals aged between 40 and 75 years using the quota method. The analysis focused on the target populations (50-74 years) of the national screening programmes for breast and colorectal cancer. The same populations were also assessed with respect to prostate cancer screening. In 2005, 93% of the sample population had undergone at least one mammogram in their lifetime; this figure reached 94% in 2008 and 95% in 2011. Compliance with recommended intervals improved between 2005 and 2011, and significantly so for women aged 65-74 years. In 2005, 25% of respondents reported having undergone at least one colorectal cancer screening test; this figure reached 38% in 2008 and 59% in 2011. Recommended intervals were respected by 30 and 51% in 2008 and 2011, respectively. In 2005, 2008 and 2011, a total of 36, 49 and 50% of men reported having undergone at least one prostate cancer screening test. This rate decreased significantly in men aged 50-59 years between 2008 and 2011 (44 vs. 37%, P≤0.05). Attendance rates in national screening programmes are high and stable for breast cancer, and although currently improving for colorectal cancer, the European guideline target has not yet been reached. Despite the absence of recommendations for prostate cancer screening, participation remains constant.

Breast cancer screening controversy: too much or not enough?

The Cochrane analysis exploring the risk/benefit ratio of breast cancer screening resulted in a controversy worldwide spread by the mass media. Our survey sought to assess the impact of this controversy in terms of breast cancer screening awareness and attendance. A nationwide observational study, recorded in the EDIFICE iterative surveys, with a representative sample of 451 women aged 40-75 years, living in France, was carried out in the 3 months after the start of the controversy in January 2013. Of the 405 women with no personal history of cancer, 69 (17%) declared having heard of the controversy (aware group). Women remembering the controversy were more likely to belong to higher socioprofessional categories and to have a higher level of education. The most frequently remembered issues were overdiagnosis (38%), unreliability (16%) and radiation risk (9%). Compared with women who were unaware of the controversy, the aware group knew more about the limits of breast cancer screening (undiagnosed cancers, 20 vs. 7%, P<0.05 and risk of false positives, 20 vs. 2%, P<0.05) and were more likely to change their opinion for the worse over the mass media debate (8.7 vs. 1.2%, P<0.05). Nevertheless, only 1% of the aware-group declared their intention to subsequently undergo screening less frequently. The low impact of the controversy on the behaviour of women with respect to screening suggests that it should not be seen as a threat to screening attendance rates, but more as an opportunity to improve awareness.

Social stratification, risk factor prevalence and cancer screening attendance.

This analysis aimed to assess the extent to which exposure to cancer risk factors and attendance of screening programmes are influenced by social characteristics. The validated Evaluation of deprivation and health inequalities in public health centres (EPICES) index was used to measure social deprivation. A sample of the general population (N=1603) was assessed to search for potential correlations between screening attendance, risk factors and any components of the EPICES score. In 2011, 33% of the population studied was classified as 'vulnerable'. Sex had no significant impact on this rating (32% men, 35% women), whereas occupational status did. Vulnerable individuals were more likely already to have cancer (10 vs. 7%; nonsignificant difference; odds ratio 1.43 [0.98-2.10]). The mean BMI was 26.0 kg/m (SD 4.9) for the vulnerable population versus 24.8 kg/m (SD 3.9) in the nonvulnerable population (P<0.01). The prevalence of current smoking was higher in the vulnerable group (38 vs. 23%, odds ratio 2.03 [1.61-2.56]). In contrast, no statistically significant difference was observed between attendance rates for nationwide organized cancer screening programmes (breast and colorectal; target age group 50-74 years) by the vulnerable and nonvulnerable groups. Social indicators of vulnerable populations are associated with increased rates of risk factors for cancer, but not with screening attendance. Our data support the previously reported marked impact of organized programmes that reduce or even remove inequalities in access to cancer screening. However, although the organized programmes have indeed enabled population-wide, nonselective access to screening, primary prevention as it stands today remains inadequate in the underserved population and further improvements are warranted.

Lung cancer risks, beliefs and healthcare access among the underprivileged.

One of the current goals of the French national cancer plan is to reduce healthcare inequalities. This study investigated the potential links between vulnerable social status, exposure to lung cancer risk factors and access to healthcare to highlight ways to improve lung cancer control in this population. The nationwide observational study EDIFICE 3 was carried out through phone interviews of a representative sample of 1603 individuals (age 40-75 years). The EPICES validated questionnaire was used to assess and classify vulnerable respondents. The vulnerable population identified represented 33% of the sample. Compared with nonvulnerable individuals, they had more risk factors for cancer: a higher BMI (26.0 vs. 24.8, P≤0.01), 38% were active smokers (vs. 23%, P≤0.01) with a heavier and longer-lasting tobacco consumption (16.0 cigarettes/day vs. 10.1, P≤0.01 and 29.4 vs. 26.3 years of smoking, P≤0.01) and they were less likely to undertake any physical activities (42 vs. 77%, P≤0.01). They also presented more comorbidities (on average 2.2 vs. 1.8, P≤0.01). Access to healthcare, however, was not discriminatory: vulnerable individuals declared consulting a general practitioner or an oncologist more often than the nonvulnerable subgroup (5.4 vs. 3.7 and 6.7 vs. 2.5 consultations in the previous 12 months, respectively, P≤0.01). Because access to healthcare and screening attendance show no signs of discrimination against vulnerable populations, efforts to reduce inequities in lung cancer control should focus on prevention.

Large population survey: strengths and limits. Methodology of the EDIFICE survey.

In France, mass screening for breast and colon cancer issupported by the French National Cancer Institute (INCa). In these nationwide screening campaigns, individuals aged between 50 and 74 years receive a personalized letter inviting them for a screening examination every 2 years. Prostate cancer screening is, however, still controversial and has not been included in the INCa recommendations so far. Research organizations are particularly interested in screening and indeed, several studies have been conducted in France and other countries to examine the different aspects of the subject. To provide actual benefits, screening should be undertaken on a regular scheduled basis. Therefore, several studies have assessed the factors influencing the participation rate of women in breast cancer screening in France (). The Institut National de Prévention et d'Education pour la Santé conducted one of these in 2005: the Baromètre Cancer (including 4046 individuals aged 15 years or older, interviewed by telephone) analysed beliefs and perceptions about cancer screening and studied attendance rates for breast, colon and prostate cancer (including scheduled screening). No previous survey has ever been conducted simultaneously among the general population and physicians with regard to individual and scheduled screening for breast cancer and colorectal cancer (CRC) or individual screening for prostate cancer. EDIFICE is thus the first large-scale survey to assess screening practices in France by analysing the targeted population on the one hand and the clinical practice of French general practitioners (GPs) on the other hand, using the 'mirror study' method to compare results. Two national surveys were conducted in 2005 and 2008. In 2005, only 22 geographical regions were included in the screening programme for CRC.