IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0224224.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adherence to general medical checkup and cancer screening guidelines according to self-reported smoking status: Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) 2010–2012

Author

Listed:
  • Eun Young Kim
  • Young Sup Shim
  • Young Saing Kim
  • Sang Pyo Lee
  • Ki Dong Ko
  • Won-Jun Choi

Abstract

Objectives: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) revealed that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening could reduce lung cancer mortality in heavy smokers. Lung screening with LDCT was implemented in July 2019 as part of the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea for heavy smokers who meet NLST criteria [smokers aged 55–74 years with 30 pack-years (PY) or more, excluding former smokers with more than 15 years since smoking cessation]. This study evaluated NLST-eligible heavy smokers’ adherence to general medical checkup and cancer screening guidelines. Methods: Using the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) from 2010 to 2012, we compared adherence of Korean adults (55–74 years, n = 5,480) to general medical checkup and cancer (gastric, colorectal, breast, and cervical) screening guidelines according to self-reported smoking status. Smoking and PY data were available, but no data indicating when former smokers ceased smoking were available. Accordingly, smoking status was only classified as NLST (smokers with a history ≥ 30 PY) and non-NLST. Individuals who met NLST criteria were subdivided into current (NLST-current) and former smokers (NLST-former). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate adherence to screening recommendations as a function of the study group (NLST-current, NLST-former, non-NLST) using possible covariates (sociodemographic factors, health-related behaviors, comorbidities, and self-reported health status). Results: Weighted prevalence of NLST-current was 9.7%, of NLST-former was 9.6%, and of non-NLST was 80.7%. Overall screening rates were 70.7% (medical checkup), 59.1% (stomach cancer), 58.1% (colorectal cancer), 59.1% (breast cancer), and 48.9% (cervical cancer). Adherence to colorectal cancer screening and medical checkup was lower in NLST-current than non-NLST (AOR 0.59; 95% CI 0.44–0.78 for colorectal cancer; AOR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52–0.95 for medical checkup). Screening practices for other cancers were not different. Conclusions: Current heavy smokers meeting NLST criteria were less likely to have colorectal cancer screening or general medical checkup. Understanding the screening practices of this target population might enable the development of more effective plans to implement lung screening and improve screening compliance for other cancers.

Suggested Citation

  • Eun Young Kim & Young Sup Shim & Young Saing Kim & Sang Pyo Lee & Ki Dong Ko & Won-Jun Choi, 2019. "Adherence to general medical checkup and cancer screening guidelines according to self-reported smoking status: Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) 2010–2012," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-10, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224224
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224224
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224224&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0224224?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224224. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.