Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Do social protection programmes affect the burden of breast and cervical cancer? A systematic review.
Gabrielli, Ligia; Alvim Matos, Sheila M; Luísa Patrão, Ana; Góes, Emanuelle F; da Conceição C Almeida, Maria; M S Menezes, Greice; Dos-Santos-Silva, Isabel; Azevedo E Silva, Gulnar; Teresa Bustamante-Teixeira, Maria; Barreto, Mauricio L; Vittal Katikireddi, Srinivasa; Leyland, Alastair H; Ferreira Campos, Luana; Maria Dias Fernandes de Novaes, Ester; de Almeida Pereira, Daniela; Rodrigues Santana, Elvira; Rodrigues Gonçalves Zeferino, Fernanda; Cleide da Silva Dias, Ana; Fernandes, Fábio G; Cristina de Oliveira Costa, Ana; M L Aquino, Estela.
  • Gabrielli L; Bahia State Centre for Diabetes and Endocrinology, SESAB, Salvador, Brazil.
  • Alvim Matos SM; Collective Health Institute, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
  • Luísa Patrão A; Collective Health Institute, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
  • Góes EF; Centre for Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education Science, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
  • da Conceição C Almeida M; Centre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Gonçalo Moniz Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Salvador, Brazil.
  • M S Menezes G; Gonçalo Moniz Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Salvador, Brazil.
  • Dos-Santos-Silva I; Collective Health Institute, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
  • Azevedo E Silva G; Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
  • Teresa Bustamante-Teixeira M; Institute of Social Medicine, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • Barreto ML; Graduate Programme on Collective Health, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil.
  • Vittal Katikireddi S; Collective Health Institute, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
  • Leyland AH; Centre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Gonçalo Moniz Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Salvador, Brazil.
  • Ferreira Campos L; MRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
  • Maria Dias Fernandes de Novaes E; MRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
  • de Almeida Pereira D; Graduate Programme on Medicine and Health, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
  • Rodrigues Santana E; Collective Health Institute, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
  • Rodrigues Gonçalves Zeferino F; Graduate Programme on Collective Health, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil.
  • Cleide da Silva Dias A; Collective Health Institute, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
  • Fernandes FG; Institute of Social Medicine, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • Cristina de Oliveira Costa A; Vale do São Francisco Federal University, Petrolina, Brazil.
  • M L Aquino E; Banco Central do Brasil, Salvador, Brazil.
Health Policy Open ; 6: 100122, 2024 Dec.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38779080
ABSTRACT

Background:

Socioeconomic conditions are strongly associated with breast and cervical cancer incidence and mortality patterns; therefore, social protection programmes (SPPs) might impact these cancers. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of SPPs on breast and cervical cancer outcomes and their risk/protective factors.

Methods:

Five databases were searched for articles that assessed participation in PPS and the incidence, survival, mortality (primary outcomes), screening, staging at diagnosis and risk/protective factors (secondary outcomes) for these cancers. Only peer-reviewed quantitative studies of women receiving SPPs compared to eligible women not receiving benefits were included. Independent reviewers selected articles, assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A harvest plot represents the included studies and shows the direction of effect, sample size and risk of bias.

Findings:

Of 17,080 documents retrieved, 43 studies were included in the review. No studies evaluated the primary outcomes. They all examined the relationship between SPPs and screening, as well as risk and protective factors. The harvest plot showed that in lower risk of bias studies, participants of SPPs had lower weight and fertility, were older at sexual debut, and breastfed their infants for longer.

Interpretation:

No studies have yet assessed the effect of SPPs on breast and cervical cancer incidence, survival, or mortality; nevertheless, the existing evidence suggests positive impacts on risk and protective factors.
Palabras clave