Provincial variation and associated factors in adherence to cervical cancer screening in Canada: Evidence from the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow's Health

Abstract

Objectives

Cervical cancer screening programs reduce cervical cancer mortality; however, screening engagement is not equally distributed across populations, and evidence on factors contributing to variation remains limited.

Methods

Using data from the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow's Health (CanPath) across five regional cohorts (BC Generations Project, Alberta's Tomorrow Project, Ontario Health Study, CARTaGENE, and Atlantic Partnership for Tomorrow's Health Study (Atlantic PATH), we assessed self-reported engagement in Pap test cervical cancer screening among participants recruited between 2008 and 2016. Self-reported Pap (Papanicolaou) screening status was categorized as “never” or “ever.” Ever screening was further classified as “recent” (≤3 years) or “past” (>3 years). Multivariable logistic regression models assessed associations with screening status while adjusting for potential confounders.

Results

A total of 166,804 individuals met the inclusion criteria. Across cohorts, 162,592 (97.5%) and 4212 (2.5%) reported ever and never undergoing cervical cancer screening, respectively. Among those with a screening history, 135,823 (83.5%) were recently screened, ranging from 78% in CARTaGENE to 85% in Atlantic PATH. Nonwhite ethnicity, lower household income, single or never-married status, low physical activity, poorer self-perceived health, and ≥24 months since the last medical checkup were associated with never or past screening. Current smoking, younger age, and reproductive and hormonal factors showed differential associations between never versus ever screened individuals and past versus recent screening.

Conclusion

The national target of 80% cervical cancer screening adherence was exceeded in most regions. Persistent socioeconomic and health-related disparities highlight the need for targeted interventions. Differences between factors associated with screening initiation and maintenance warrant further investigation.

Keywords

CanPath cohort Canada cervical cancer screening

Introduction

In Canada, about 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of female cancer-related deaths are attributed to cervical cancer.¹ Standard screening programs using the Papanicolaou (Pap) test have been proven to reduce cervical cancer mortality rates.² Since cervical cancer is a preventable and curable disease, recently the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a global cervical cancer elimination strategy including a combination of primary prevention through human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination coverage of 90%, cervix screening coverage of 70%, and access to treatment for 90% of precancerous and cancer diagnosed women in all countries, worldwide.³ While provinces are transitioning to HPV-based primary screening, currently (2025) the Pap test, a cervical swab used to collect a sample of cells, is the primary recommended screening test to identify early-stage cervical cancer in Canada.^1,4,5

Participation in cervical screening is not equally distributed across different populations in Canada.^6–8 Studies have shown that 12–43% of Canadian women have never been screened for cervical cancer.⁸ Disparities in screening uptake are multifactorial and related to personal, clinical, and sociocultural factors as well as access to healthcare services and guidelines.^8–10 In two recent studies conducted by our team, using data from the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow's Health (CanPath), we observed considerable variation in breast and colorectal cancer screening across Canadian provinces, with low household income and poor self-perceived health significantly reducing the likelihood of adherence to screening recommendations.^9,10

Although the transition to HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is occurring across Canada,^11,12 HPV-based screening is still too recent at a population level to understand the screening patterns to the same extent as those observed using historical Pap test data. Moreover, many barriers and facilitators to Pap test screening adherence are likely to persist in the new cervical screening program. Identifying these factors can therefore support policymakers in identifying priority populations and targeting health promotion activities. Considering the recommended five-year screening interval, it will not yet be possible to assess sustained engagement with HPV testing until approximately 2029, as the HPV-based screening program was introduced in British Columbia in 2024. Finally, although HPV testing is available, some women may still choose to undergo Pap testing collected by their healthcare provider. To address these gaps, the objective of the current study was to assess factors associated with self-reported Pap test cervical cancer screening participation across five regional cohorts contributing to CanPath.

Methods

Study population

CanPath and its regional cohorts have been previously described.¹³ Using questionnaires, data on social and medical determinants of health, including age, sex, education, country of birth, race, marital status, income, self-perceived health, family history of cancer and chronic diseases, physical activity, smoking status, number of pregnancies, and history of breastfeeding, among individuals aged 30 to 74 were collected from 2008 to 2016. In this study, women aged 30 to 69 with no prior self-reported diagnosis of cervical cancer were included. Individuals with missing information on age, cancer status and/or type, and with an unknown history of cervical cancer screening were excluded.

Screening status and risk factors

To examine engagement in cervical screening, the baseline questionnaire included questions on lifetime history of cervical cancer screening, as well as the timing of the last Pap test relative to study enrollment. Cervical cancer screening status was categorized as “never screened” if participants reported no previous history of a Pap test and “ever screened” if participants reported any history of cervical cancer screening at study enrollment. Based on the screening recommendation of every three years among women aged 25 to 69 at the time of data collection, we further categorized ever screening status as “recent” with history of screening “≤3 years” if participants reported history of Pap test less than six months to less than three years ago, and “past” with history of screening “> 3 years” if participants reported history of Pap test more than three years ago.

Variable creation

As described previously,^9,10 variables explored in this study were age (i.e. 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69), total annual household income (i.e. <$50,000, $50,000–99,999, ≥$100,000), education (i.e. high school or less; trade, technical school or diploma from a community college; university certificate below bachelor's level; bachelor's degree; graduate degree), marital status (i.e. married or living with a partner, divorced, widowed, separated, single/never married), ethnic background (i.e. white, black, Arab, East Asian, Latin American/Hispanic, Southeast Asian, South Asian, East Asian, Jewish, Other/Unknown), first language (i.e. English, French, other), perception of health (i.e. poor, fair, good, very good, excellent), country of birth (i.e. Canada, other), smoking status (i.e. never smoked at least 100 cigarettes, past smoker [ever smoked at least 100 cigarettes], current occasional smoker, current daily smoker), level of physical activity (i.e. low, moderate, high), presence of comorbidities, time since last routine medical checkup by a doctor or a nurse (<12 months, ≤12 to <24 months, ≥24 months), number of pregnancies (0, 1, 2, ≥3), total lifetime duration of breastfeeding (0, ≤12 months, >12 months), ever use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) (no/yes), ever use of hormone fertility treatment (no/yes), ever use of contraceptives (no/yes), and premenopausal versus postmenopausal status.

Statistical analysis

Sociodemographic characteristics of participants stratified by study cohort at enrollment were presented as counts and percentages. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with cervical cancer screening status by comparing participants who had never been screened with those who had ever been screened. Among individuals with a history of screening, additional models compared recent versus past cervical cancer screening.

In the models, only variables selected through backward elimination using a p-value cutoff of ≤0.05 were included to evaluate the association between cervical cancer screening and potential predictors. Associations were estimated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals [95% CI] and corresponding p-values. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (Cary, NC, USA). Ethical approval was provided by the Health Research Ethics Board, University of British Columbia. This study is reported in accordance with the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology guidelines.¹⁴

Results

Characteristics of the study participants are summarized in Table 1. From a total of 261,760 respondents at enrollment in CanPath, 166,804 individuals aged 30–69, including 18,977 (11.4%) from the BC Generations Project (BCGP), 24,291 (14.6%) from Alberta's Tomorrow Project (ATP), 84,221 (51.7%) from the Ontario Health Study (OHS), 22,193 (13.3%) from CARTaGENE, and 15,122 (9.1%) from the Atlantic Partnership for Tomorrow's Health Study (Atlantic PATH), met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1, Table 1). In total across all cohorts, 97.5% (N = 162,592) of individuals reported ever history of cervical cancer screening. Overall, among individuals with history of cervical cancer, 83.5% reported recent history of screening. The recent history of cervical cancer screening ranged from 78.9% in CARTaGENE to 85.1% in Atlantic PATH (Table 1).

Figure 1.

Study flow diagram.

Table 1.

Summary characteristics of Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow's Health (CanPath) by regional cohort.

	OverallN (%)	Atlantic PATHN (%)	ATPN (%)	BCGPN (%)	CARTaGENEN (%)	OHSN (%)
	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)
Total	166,804 100.00	15,122 9.1	24,291 14.6	18,977 11.4	22,193 13.3	86,221 51.7
Cervical cancer screening status
Ever	162,592 97.5	15,027 99.4	24,140 99.4	18,836 99.3	20,098 90.6	84,491 98.0
Never	4212 2.5	95 0.6	151 0.6	141 0.7	2095 9.4	1730 2.0
Recent (≤3 years)	135,823 83.5	12,784 85.1	20,477 84.8	15,520 82.4	15,866 78.9	71,176 84.2
Past (>3years)	26,769 16.5	2243 14.9	3663 15.2	3316 17.6	4232 21.1	13,315 15.8
Age
30–39	25,750 15.8	2609 17.4	2300 9.5	1071 5.7	76 0.4	19,694 23.3
40–49	45,852 28.2	4187 27.9	6508 27.0	4052 21.5	7667 38.2	23,438 27.7
50–59	54,614 33.6	5026 33.5	9167 38.0	6676 35.4	7664 38.1	26,081 30.9
60–69	36,376 22.4	3205 21.3	6165 25.5	7037 37.4	4691 23.3	15,278 18.0
Household income
< $50,000	35,357 21.8	3399 22.6	4043 16.8	4196 22.3	5368 26.7	18,351 21.7
$50,000–$99,999	54,496 33.5	5710 38.0	7496 31.1	7053 37.4	6761 33.6	27,476 32.5
≥ $100,000	54,402 33.5	4773 31.8	10,948 45.4	6348 33.7	5616 27.9	26,717 31.6
Unknown	18,337 11.3	1145 7.6	1653 6.8	1239 6.6	2353 11.7	11,947 14.1
Education
No education, or less than high school	33,375 20.5	2671 17.8	5424 22.5	3775 20.0	4145 20.6	17,360 20.6
Trade, technical school or diploma from community college	55,617 34.2	5772 38.4	8691 36.0	6122 32.5	6647 33.1	28,385 33.6
University certificate below bachelor's	7864 4.8	724 4.8	1196 5.0	1170 6.2	1700 8.5	3074 3.6
Bachelor's degree	42,215 26.0	3865 25.7	6146 25.5	4766 25.	4821 24.0	22,617 26.8
Graduate degree	21,953 13.5	1947 13.0	2674 11.1	2906 15.4	2367 11.8	12,059 14.3
Unknown	1568 1.0	48 0.3	9 0.0	97 0.5	418 2.1	996 1.2
First language learned
English	117,714 72.4	12,603 83.9	21,455 88.9	16,296 86.5	1366 6.8	65,994 78.1
French	27,408 16.9	2265 15.1	948 3.9	549 2.9	16,760 83.4	6886 8.2
Other	17,470 10.7	159 1.1	1737 7.2	1991 10.6	1972 9.8	11,611 13.7
Marital status
Married or living with a partner	114,070 70.2	11,596 77.2	18,091 74.9	13,616 72.29	12,971 64.5	57,796 68.4
Divorced	18,458 11.35	1185 7.9	2822 11.7	2250 12.0	2805 14.0	9396 11.1
Widowed	5678 3.5	530 3.5	957 3.96	807 4.3	649 3.2	2735 3.2
Separated	6926 4.3	540 3.6	630 2.61	568 3.0	837 4.2	4351 5.2
Single, never married	15,938 9.8	1117 7.4	1634 6.77	1518 8.1	2445 12.2	9224 10.9
Unknown	1522 0.9	59 0.4	6 0.0	77 0.41	391 2.0	989 1.2
Self-perceived health
Poor	2773 1.7	137 0.9	149 0.6	169 0.9	366 2.6	1952 2.3
Fair	13,238 8.1	964 6.4	1128 4.7	1055 5.6	2126 1.8	7965 9.4
Good	51,045 31.4	4392 29.2	6645 27.5	5209 27.7	8805 10.6	25,994 30.8
Very good	66,965 41.2	6898 46.0	11,439 47.4	8230 43.7	6303 43.8	34,095 40.4
Excellent	27,821 17.1	2615 17.4	4777 19.8	4080 21.7	1974 31.4	14,375 17.0
Unknown	750 0.5	21 0.1	<10 0.0	93 0.5	524 9.8	110 0.1
Country of birth
Canada	13,3861 82.3	14,287 95.1	20,921 86.7	14,422 76.6	17,761 88.4	66,470 78.7
Other	28,731 17.7	740 4.9	3219 13.3	4414 23.4	2337 11.6	18,021 21.3
Ethnicity
White	126,163 76.6	12,610 83.4	15,098 62.2	15,855 83.6	16,160 72.8	66,440 77.1
Black (African or Caribbean descent)	1493 0.9	35 0.2	56 0.2	35 0.2	224 1.0	1143 1.3
Arab (e.g. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon)	547 0.3	18 0.1	19 0.1	11 0.1	231 42.2	268 48.9
East Asian (e.g. China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan)	4063 2.4	22 0.5	267 1.1	833 4.4	70 0.3	2871 3.3
Latin American/Hispanic	1261 0.8	13 0.1	129 10.2	164 13.0	60 4.8	895 71.0
Southeast Asian (e.g. Malaysia, Indonesia, Viet Nam)	1741 1.0	<10 0.1	105 6.0	164 9.4	37 2.1	1428 82.0
South Asian (e.g. India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh)	294 0.2	<10 2.0	38 12.9	54 18.4	28 9.5	168 57.1
West Asian (e.g. Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan)	945 0.6	22 2.3	102 10.8	93 9.8	209 22.1	519 54.9
Jewish	1266 0.8	15 1.2	36 2.8	145 11.5	62 4.9	1008 79.6
Unknown/Other	29,031 17.4	2374 8.2	8441 29.1	1623 5.6	5112 17.6	11,481 39.6
Physical activity level
Low	38,454 23.7	4549 30.3	3432 14.2	2496 13.3	4376 21.8	23,601 27.9
Moderate	46,433 28.6	4575 30.5	5824 24.1	4497 23.9	6430 32.0	25,107 29.7
High	51,225 31.5	5264 35.0	7454 30.9	6239 33.1	6221 31.0	26,047 30.8
Unknown	26,480 16.3	639 4.3	7430 30.8	5604 29.8	3071 15.3	9736 11.5
Smoking status
Never smoked at least 100 cigarettes	82,978 51.0	7595 50.5	13,091 54.2	10,109 53.7	8693 43.3	43,490 51.5
Past smoker (ever at least 100 cigarettes)	54,746 33.7	5551 36.9	7164 29.7	7552 40.1	7718 38.4	26,761 31.7
Current occasional smoker	4039 2.5	400 2.7	310 1.3	272 1.4	738 3.7	2319 2.7
Current daily smoker	15,423 9.5	1320 8.8	1459 6.0	700 3.7	2503 12.5	9441 11.2
Unknown	5406 3.3	161 1.1	2116 8.8	203 1.1	446 2.2	2480 2.9
Presence of comorbidity
0	72,821 44.8	7048 46.9	11,174 46.3	7599 40.3	8120 40.4	38,880 46.0
1	45,409 27.9	4848 32.3	7962 33.0	5122 27.2	3440 17.1	24,037 28.5
2	21,720 13.4	2223 14.8	3566 14.8	2467 13.1	2273 11.3	11,191 13.3
3	7063 4.3	683 4.6	1075 4.5	794 4.2	629 3.1	3882 4.6
4	3369 2.1	164 1.1	294 1.2	428 2.3	885 4.4	1598 1.9
5	12,108 7.5	43 0.3	65 0.3	2382 12.7	4751 23.6	4867 5.8
Unknown	102 0.1	18 0.1	<10 0.0	44 0.2	<10 0.0	36 0.0
Family history of cervical cancer
No	158,235 97.3	14,522 96.6	23,358 96.8	18,103 96.1	19,771 98.4	82,481 97.6
Yes	4357 2.7	505 3.4	782 3.2	733 3.9	327 1.6	2010 2.4
Time since last routine medical checkup by a doctor or a nurse
<12 months	108,533 66.8	10,227 68.1	16,677 69.1	11,516 61.1	14,306 71.2	55,807 66.1
≤12 to <24 months	33,302 20.5	2505 16.7	4818 20.0	4390 23.3	3108 15.5	18,481 21.9
≥ 24 months	17,887 11.0	1855 12.3	1842 7.6	2563 13.6	2015 10.0	9612 11.4
Unknown	2870 1.8	440 2.9	803 3.3	367 2.0	669 3.3	591 0.7
Pregnancy
0	26,809 52.0	2304 15.3	3328 13.8	3201 17.0	2669 13.3	15,307 18.1
1	21,103 16.5	2018 13.4	2466 10.2	2363 12.6	2787 13.9	11,469 13.6
2	47,870 13.0	5048 33.6	7295 30.2	5496 29.2	5987 29.8	24,044 28.5
≥ 3	65,019 29.4	5598 37.3	11,001 45.6	7675 40.8	8406 41.8	32,339 38.3
Unknown	1791 40.0	59 0.4	50 0.2	101 0.5	249 1.2	1332 1.6
Total lifetime duration of breastfeeding
0	30,530 18.8	3836 25.5	4260 17.7	2450 13.0	7843 39.0	12,141 14.4
≤12 months	53,091 32.7	5307 35.3	8429 34.9	6184 32.8	6021 30.0	27,150 32.1
>12 months	37,226 22.9	2911 19.4	7981 33.1	5991 31.8	2663 13.3	17,680 20.9
Unknown	41,745 25.7	2973 19.8	3470 14.4	4211 22.4	3571 17.8	27,520 32.6
Ever use of hormone replacement therapy
No	121,560 74.8	8475 56.4	17,319 71.7	12,300 65.3	15,088 75.1	68,378 80.9
Yes	36,288 22.3	2899 19.3	6792 28.1	6340 33.7	4667 23.2	15,590 18.5
Unknown	4744 2.9	3653 24.3	29 0.1	196 1.0	343 1.7	523 0.6
Ever use of hormone fertility treatment
No	147,897 91.0	14,190 94.4	22,562 93.5	17,666 93.8	18,549 92.3	74,930 88.7
Yes	10,631 6.5	730 4.9	1545 6.4	1055 5.6	1317 6.6	5984 7.1
Unknown	4064 2.5	107 0.7	33 0.1	115 0.6	232 1.2	3577 4.2
Ever use of contraceptives
No	17,764 10.9	1180 7.9	2187 9.1	1749 9.3	2742 13.6	9906 11.7
Yes	144,058 88.6	13,813 91.9	21,943 90.9	17,022 90.4	17,140 85.3	74,140 87.8
Unknown	770 0.5	34 0.2	10 0.0	65 0.4	216 1.1	445 0.5
Menopause
No	78,486 48.3	7385 49.1	9985 41.4	6396 34.0	8956 44.6	45,764 54.2
Yes	82,040 50.5	7459 49.6	13,900 57.6	12,178 64.7	10,640 52.9	37,863 44.8
Unknown	2066 1.3	183 1.2	255 1.1	262 1.4	502 2.5	864 1.0

Atlantic PATH: Atlantic Partnership for Tomorrow's Health Study; ATP: Alberta's Tomorrow Project; BCGP: BC Generations Project; OHS: Ontario Health Study.

<10: cell count suppressed due to low sample size of less than 10 participants.

Across all cohorts, most participants were married or living with a partner (70.2%), were white (76.6%), and were never smokers (51.0%). Furthermore, greater proportions of participants reported household incomes ranging from $50,000 to 99,999 (33.5%), an education at the level of trade, technical school, or diploma from community college (34.2%), very good self-perceived health (41.2%), a high level of physical activity (31.5%), with no history of comorbid condition (44.8%), and less than 12 months since last routine medical checkup (66.8%). No history of pregnancy (52.0%), never use of HRT (74.8%), ≤ 12 months lifetime duration of breastfeeding (32.7%), ever use of contraceptives (88.6%), and postmenopausal status (50.5%) were most frequently reported. Across all cohorts, 2.7% of individuals reported a family history of cervical cancer (Table 1).

Table 2 presents characteristics of study participants by screening status. Overall, among never, past and recent screened individuals, 60.4%, 57.3% and 62.6% of participants were aged 40–59, respectively. A higher proportion of individuals with recent screening history reported a household income of ≥$100,000 (33.5%), an education status of Bachelor's degree or higher (27.4%), being married or living with a partner (71.3%), never smoking (52.4%), a higher level of physical activity (31.9%), good or very good self-perceived health (30.4% and 42.5%), no presence of a comorbid condition (46.6%), and <12 months since last routine medical checkup (69.9%). On the other hand, a higher proportion of women with past screening history reported postmenopausal status (70%), family history of cervical cancer (3.3%), and ever use of HRT (33.8%). Among individuals with no screening history, a higher proportion were aged 30–49 (55.6%), had a household income <$50,000 (41.0%), reported ethnic backgrounds other than white, spoke a first language other than English (70.2%), never smoked (62.7%), reported low level of physical activity (31.3%), had no comorbidities (54.3%), and had their last routine medical checkup <12 months (55.1%).

Table 2.

Summary characteristics of Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow's Health (CanPath) by screening status.

Study population	Never	Recent (≤3 years)	Past (>3 years)
Variable	4212 2.5	135,823 83.5	26,769 16.5
Age
30–39	93822.3	23,66117.4	20897.8
40–49	140333.3	40,12829.5	572421.4
50–59	114427.1	45,01033.1	960435.9
60–69	72717.2	27,02419.9	935234.9
Ethnicity
White	226953.9	103,22076.0	20,67477.2
Black (African or Caribbean descent)	892.1	14391.1	2420.9
Arab (e.g. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon)	1092.6	5920.4	760.3
East Asian (e.g. China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan)	52412.4	33802.5	4471.7
Latin American/Hispanic	461.1	10380.8	1130.4
Southeast Asian (e.g. Malaysia, Indonesia, Viet Nam)	1072.5	10270.8	1800.7
South Asian (e.g. India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh)	2034.8	15271.1	2360.9
West Asian (e.g. Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan)	260.6	3030.2	370.1
Jewish	1353.2	53483.9	9173.4
Unknown/Other	70416.7	17,94913.2	384714.4
Household income
< $50,000	172841.0	27,05519.9	830231.0
$50,000–$99,999	118628.2	45,49833.5	899833.6
≥ $100,000	53812.8	48,17535.5	622723.3
Unknown	76018.0	15,09511.1	324212.1
Education
No education, or less than high school	113827.0	25,95619.1	741927.7
Trade, technical school or diploma from community college	123929.4	45,60833.6	10,00937.4
University certificate below bachelor's	2716.4	64004.7	14645.5
Bachelor's degree	96622.9	37,16627.4	504918.9
Graduate degree	48111.4	19,45014.3	25039.3
Unknown	1172.8	12430.90	3251.2
First language learned
English	125229.7	98,65272.7	18,98570.9
French	185143.9	22,21616.4	518219.4
Other	110926.3	14,86610.9	25899.7
Marital status
Married or living with a partner	207849.3	96,83071.3	17,24064.4
Divorced	4009.5	14,81210.9	364613.6
Widowed	1283.0	41683.06	15105.64
Separated	1283.0	56964.2	12304.60
Single, never married	136032.3	13,0919.65	283810.60
Unknown	1182.8	12170.90	3051.14
Smoking status
Never smoked at least 100 cigarettes	264262.7	71,12152.4	11,85744.3
Past smoker (ever smoked at least 100 cigarettes)	86720.6	45,24033.31	950635.5
Current occasional smoker	952.3	34332.5	6062.3
Current daily smoker	49411.73	11,5528.5	387114.5
Unknown	1142.7	44773.3	9293.5
Physical activity level
Low	131831.3	31,16722.9	728727.2
Moderate	110326.2	39,11428.8	731927.3
High	107025.4	43,32831.9	789729.5
Unknown	72117.1	22,21416.4	426615.9
Self-perceived health
Poor	1102.6	19241.41	8493.3
Fair	58713.9	97547.2	348413.0
Good	172140.9	41,27230.4	977336.5
Very good	125229.7	57,71442.5	925134.6
Excellent	45110.7	24,57918.1	324212.1
Unknown	912.2	5800.4	1700.6
Presence of comorbidity
0	228854.3	63,20246.6	961936.0
1	68716.3	38,07528.1	733427.4
2	4059.6	17,15212.6	456817.1
3	1212.9	51943.8	18697.0
4	1212.9	25081.9	8613.2
5	58814.0	96037.1	25059.4
Unknown	<100.1	890.1	130.1
Family history of cervical cancer
No	415698.7	132,35997.5	25,87696.7
Yes	561.3	34642.6	8933.3
Pregnancy
0	172841.0	22,58116.6	422815.8
1	4189.9	17,92213.2	318111.9
2	83519.8	40,35529.7	751528.1
≥ 3	109025.9	53,47939.4	11,54043.1
Unknown	1413.4	14861.1	3051.1
Total lifetime duration of breastfeeding
0	116927.8	23,56817.4	696226.0
≤12 months	67616.0	44,58832.8	850331.8
>12 months	2856.8	32,72824.1	449816.8
Unknown	208249.4	34,93925.7	680625.4
Ever use of contraceptives
No	204448.5	14,08810.4	367613.7
Yes	201447.8	121,10589.2	22,95385.7
Unknown	1543.7	6300.5	1400.5
Ever use of hormone fertility treatment
No	392993.3	123,18890.7	24,70992.3
Yes	1433.4	92326.8	13995.2
Unknown	1403.3	34032.5	6612.5
Ever use of hormone replacement therapy
No	43710.4	104,35476.8	17,20664.3
Yes	1553.7	27,24020.1	904833.8
Unknown	362086.0	42293.1	5151.9
Menopause
No	246358.5	71,05752.3	742927.8
Yes	157737.4	63,30346.6	18,73770.0
Unknown	1724.1	14631.1	6032.3
Time since last routine medical checkup by a doctor or a nurse
<12 months	231955.1	94,94669.9	13,58750.8
≤12–<24 months	70216.7	28,96821.3	433416.2
≥ 24 months	77918.5	10,0837.4	780429.2
Unknown	4129.8	18261.3	10443.9

<10: cell count suppressed due to low sample size of less than 10 participants.

Table 3 presents predictors of cervical cancer screening engagement among ever versus never screened individuals. Overall, compared to OHS (the CanPath region with the largest number of participants), the likelihood of being never screened compared to being ever screened was lower across three regions, ranging from 30% in ATP to 50% in BCGP. In contrast, participants from CARTaGENE had substantially higher odds of being never screened compared with those from OHS (OR: 5.50; 95% CI [4.87–6.21]). Several ethnic backgrounds (Arab, East Asian, Southeast Asian, South Asian, West Asian), lower household income ($50,000–99,999), education status (less than high school), first language other than English, marital status of single or never married, reduced physical activity, poor self-perceived health status, country of birth other than Canada, no history of pregnancy or breastfeeding, never use of contraceptives and more than 12 months since last routine medical checkup were significantly associated with higher odds of never being screened for cervical cancer.

Table 3.

Predictors of cervical cancer screening comparing ever (reference category N = 162,592) versus never screening (N = 4212) status.

Study population	N = 166,804
Variable	Odds ratio*[95% CI]
Region
BCGP	0.50 [0.41–0.61]
Atlantic Path	0.56 [0.44–0.70]
ATP	0.70 [0.58–0.83]
CARTaGENE	5.50 [4.87–6.21]
OHS	1.00
Age
30–39	1.98 [1.73–2.26]
40–49	1.05 [0.95–1.17]
50–59	1.00
60–69	1.00 [0.89–1.12]
Ethnicity
White	1.00
Black (African or Caribbean descent)	1.24 [0.95–1.63]
Arab (e.g. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon)	3.49 [2.65–4.61]
East Asian (e.g. China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan)	3.94 [3.40–4.56]
Latin American/Hispanic	0.91 [0.64–1.29]
Southeast Asian (e.g. Malaysia, Indonesia, Viet Nam)	2.35 [1.83–3.01]
South Asian (e.g. India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh)	4.28 [3.53–5.20]
West Asian (e.g. Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan)	2.75 [1.69–4.47]
Jewish	0.92 [0.52–1.61]
Unknown/Other	1.06 [0.97–1.17]
Household income
< $50,000	2.21 [1.96–2.48]
$50,000–$99,999	1.45 [1.29–1.62]
≥ $100,000	1.00
Unknown	1.95 [1.71–2.22]
Education
No education, or less than high school	1.82 [1.59–2.08]
Trade, technical school or diploma from community college	1.32 [1.17–1.49]
University certificate below bachelor's	1.36 [1.15–1.62]
Bachelor's degree	1.04 [0.92–1.17]
Graduate degree	1.00
First language learned
English	1.00
French	2.30 [2.05–2.58]
Other	1.38 [1.23–1.56]
Marital status
Married or living with a partner	1.00
Divorced	0.98 [0.86–1.10]
Widowed	1.04 [0.85–1.28]
Separated	0.84 [0.69–1.02]
Single, never married	1.68 [1.53–1.85]
Unknown	0.98 [0.74–1.30]
Smoking status
Never smoked at least 100 cigarettes	1.00
Past smoker (ever smoked at least 100 cigarettes)	0.68 [0.62–0.74]
Current occasional smoker	0.59 [0.47–0.74]
Current daily smoker	0.73 [0.65–0.82]
Unknown	0.44 [0.33–0.58]
Physical activity level
Low	1.20 [1.09–1.32]
Moderate	1.00 [0.91–1.10]
High	1.00
Unknown	1.12 [0.99–1.26]
Self-perceived health
Poor	1.27 [1.00–1.62]
Fair	1.38 [1.19–1.60]
Good	1.18 [1.05–1.33]
Very good	1.04 [0.92–1.17]
Excellent	1.00
Unknown	0.94 [0.65–1.37]
Country of birth
Canada	1.00
Other	1.68 [1.51–1.88]
Presence of comorbidity
0	1.00
1	0.69 [0.63–0.76]
2	0.79 [0.70–0.89]
3	0.76 [0.62–0.93]
4	0.91 [0.74–1.13]
5	0.95 [0.85–1.07]
Pregnancy
0	2.90 [2.44–3.45]
1	0.85 [0.75–0.97]
2	1.08 [0.98–1.20]
≥ 3	1.00
Unknown	1.41 [1.05–1.89]
Total lifetime duration of breastfeeding
0	1.93 [1.73–2.14]
≤12 months	1.00
>12 months	0.71 [0.61–0.82]
Unknown	1.20 [1.01–1.42]
Ever use of contraceptives
No	1.00
Yes	4.20 [3.89–4.52]
Unknown	4.74 [3.67–6.14]
Ever use of hormone fertility treatment
No	1.00
Yes	0.62 [0.51–0.74]
Unknown	1.13 [0.89–1.44]
Ever use of hormone replacement therapy
No	1.00
Yes	0.68 [0.60–0.76]
Unknown	1.15 [0.90–1.46]
Menopause
No	1.00
Yes	1.16 [1.04–1.29]
Unknown	1.86 [1.48–2.34]
Time since last routine medical checkup by a doctor or a nurse
<12 months	1.00
≤12 to <24 months	1.12 [1.02–1.22]
≥ 24 months	1.98 [1.80–2.18]
Unknown	4.17 [3.63–4.78]

Atlantic PATH: Atlantic Partnership for Tomorrow's Health Study; ATP: Alberta's Tomorrow Project; BCGP: BC Generations Project; OHS: Ontario Health Study.

Table 4 presents predictors of cervical cancer screening engagement among individuals with past compared to recent screening status. Overall, compared to OHS, the likelihood of past compared to recent engagement in cervical screening was significantly lower across three regions, ranging from 8% in ATP to 17% in Atlantic PATH, except CARTaGENE with significantly higher odds of past screening status (OR: 1.07; 95% CI [1.00–1.14]) (Table 4). Lower household income, education status less than high school, French compared to English language, Southeast Asian and South Asian ethnic backgrounds, widowed marital status or single/never married, poor self-perceived health status, more than 12 months since last routine medical checkup, no history of breastfeeding and never use of contraceptives were significant factors associated with past cervical cancer screening.

Table 4.

Predictors of cervical cancer screening comparing individuals screened ≤3 years (reference category) versus individuals screened more than three years ago.

Study population	N = 162,592
Variable	Odds ratio*[95% CI]
Region
BCGP	0.88 [0.84–0.92]
Atlantic Path	0.83 [0.79–0.88]
ATP	0.92 [0.88–0.96]
CARTaGENE	1.07 [1.00–1.14]
OHS	1.00
Age
30–39	0.77 [0.72–0.82]
40–49	1.09 [1.04–1.15]
50–59	1.00
60–69	1.35 [1.30–1.40]
Ethnicity
White	1.00
Black (African or Caribbean descent)	1.12 [0.95–1.37]
Arab (e.g. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon)	0.70 [0.50–0.95]
East Asian (e.g. China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan)	0.94 [0.84–1.05]
Latin American/Hispanic	0.72 [0.58–0.89]
Southeast Asian (e.g. Malaysia, Indonesia, Viet Nam)	1.25 [1.05–1.49]
South Asian (e.g. India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh)	1.20 [1.03–1.41]
West Asian (e.g. China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan)	0.69 [0.44–1.07]
Jewish	0.63 [0.52–0.77]
Unknown/Other	0.99 [0.95–1.03]
Household income
< $50,000	1.17 [1.10–1.23]
$50,000–$99,999	1.32 [1.26–1.38]
≥ $100,000	1.00
Unknown	1.14 [1.09–1.18]
Education
No education, or less than high school	1.33 [1.14–1.51]
Trade, technical school or diploma from community college	1.42 [1.34–1.50]
University certificate below bachelor's	1.36 [1.26–1.47]
Bachelor's degree	1.04 [0.99–1.10]
Graduate degree	1.00
First language learned
English	1.00
French	1.06 [1.00–1.11]
Other	0.93 [0.88–1.00]
Marital status
Married or living with a partner	1.00
Divorced	0.98 [0.93–1.02]
Widowed	1.16 [1.08–1.24]
Separated	0.98 [0.92–1.06]
Single, never married	1.12 [1.06–1.19]
Unknown	1.15 [0.98–1.33]
Smoking status
Never smoked at least 100 cigarettes	1.00
Past smoker (ever smoked at least 100 cigarettes)	1.01 [0.98–1.05]
Current occasional smoker	0.97 [0.88–1.07]
Current daily smoker	1.32 [1.26–1.39]
Unknown	1.15 [1.06–1.25]
Physical activity level
Low	1.04 [1.00–1.08]
Moderate	0.98 [0.94–1.01]
High	1.00
Unknown	0.90 [0.86–0.95]
Self-perceived health
Poor	2.19 [1.98–2.43]
Fair	1.88 [1.77–2.00]
Good	1.38 [1.32–1.45]
Very good	1.10 [1.05–1.15]
Excellent	1.00
Unknown	1.28 [1.02–1.61]
Presence of comorbidity
0	1.00
1	1.06 [1.03–1.10]
2	1.27 [1.21–1.33]
3	1.49 [1.40–1.59]
4	1.48 [1.35–1.62]
5	1.28 [1.21–1.36]
Pregnancy
0	0.99 [0.93–1.06]
1	0.84 [0.80–0.88]
2	0.89 [0.86–0.93]
≥ 3	1.00
Unknown	0.86 [0.73–1.00]
Total lifetime duration of breastfeeding
0	1.20 [1.15–1.25]
≤12 months	1.00
>12 months	0.86 [0.83–0.90]
Unknown	1.02 [0.96–1.08]
Ever use of contraceptives
No	1.00
Yes	1.30 [1.25–1.36]
Unknown	0.86 [0.69–1.08]
Ever use of hormone fertility treatment
No	1.00
Yes	0.91 [0.85–0.97]
Unknown	0.92 [0.83–1.02]
Ever use of hormone replacement therapy
No	1.00
Yes	1.51 [1.46–1.56]
Unknown	0.97 [0.85–1.09]
Menopause
No	1.00
Yes	0.44 [0.42–0.46]
Unknown	1.57 [1.41–1.76]
Time since last routine medical checkup by a doctor or a nurse
<12 months	1.00
≤12–<24 months	1.20 [1.15–1.25]
≥ 24 months	7.79 [7.49–8.09]
Unknown	5.26 [4.82–5.73]

Atlantic PATH: Atlantic Partnership for Tomorrow's Health Study; ATP: Alberta's Tomorrow Project; BCGP: BC Generations Project; OHS: Ontario Health Study.

Several variables demonstrated differential associations across the two screening comparisons. In the analysis comparing individuals who had never been screened with those who had ever been screened, younger age (OR 1.98; 95% CI [1.73–2.26]) and premenopausal status (OR 1.16; 95% CI [1.04–1.29]) were associated with higher odds of never having been screened. In contrast, current daily smoking (OR 0.73; 95% CI [0.65–0.82]), having one comorbidity (OR 0.69; 95% CI [0.63–0.76]), and never use of HRT (OR 0.68; 95% CI [0.60–0.76]) were associated with lower odds of never screening (i.e. greater likelihood of ever being screened).

When restricting the analysis to individuals who had ever been screened and comparing past versus recent screening, older age (60–69 years: OR 1.35; 95% CI [1.30–1.40]), current daily smoking (OR 1.32; 95% CI [1.26–1.39]), having one comorbidity (OR 1.06; 95% CI [1.03–1.10]), and never use of HRT (OR 1.51; 95% CI [1.46–1.56]) were associated with higher odds of past screening (i.e. lower likelihood of recent screening). In contrast, postmenopausal women were more likely to report recent screening (OR 0.44; 95% CI [0.42–0.46]) compared with premenopausal women. The direction and magnitude of associations for several variables differed between the two screening comparisons (Tables 3 and 4).

Discussion

Guidelines in Canada indicate that, besides the overall screening coverage of 90%, at least 80% of eligible individuals in any identifiable group should be up to date with cervical screening.⁴ In our study, we found that, with the exception of CARTaGENE (78.9%), all CanPath cohorts exceeded this target. We also found that among individuals with past screening status, social factors (namely lower household income and education status, marital status of widowed or single/never married), personal characteristics and behaviors (such as older age, current daily smoking), as well as clinical factors (including self-perceived health besides excellent, presence of comorbidity condition, more than 12 months since last routine medical checkup by a doctor or nurse, never use of HRT) were identified factors associated with cervical cancer screening recommendations. Furthermore, our findings suggest that factors associated with screening initiation may differ from those associated with adherence to recommended screening intervals among individuals already engaged in screening. While younger and premenopausal women were more likely to report never being screened, older age and smoking were associated with a greater likelihood of past rather than recent screening among those previously screened. This pattern suggests that determinants of screening uptake may differ from those affecting continued adherence to recommended screening intervals.

Our findings were similar to those reported by Datta et al. based on a study conducted among women residing in the Montreal metropolitan area in 2018.¹⁵ In that study, about 26% of women had not been screened for cervical cancer in the past three years.¹⁵ Not having a family physician, older age, and lower education were among the strongest predictors of not having up-to-date screening status.¹⁵ In a recently published study assessing concurrent cancer screening participation among Canadian women, having a regular healthcare provider was also strongly associated with full participation in all screening programs (OR: 1.87, 95% CI [1.14–3.07]).¹⁶ In a study conducted by Ince-Cushman et al. in Montreal, male primary physician sex was associated with lower cervical cancer screening.¹⁷ On the other hand, in a study conducted by Bouck et al. in Ontario, having a male physician was associated with an increased odds of overuse and frequent order of low-value Pap tests (defined as Pap tests within seven days among low-risk primary care outpatients undergoing an annual health examination) for women younger than 21 years or older than 69 years.¹⁸ These findings highlight the significant impact of the primary physician on an individual's cancer screening behavior. In prior research on adherence to screening programs, lack of time within medical appointments has also been found to be an important barrier to screening participation.^19,20 Primary care physician encouragement has been identified as a factor that positively affects women's decision to screen.^19,21 Using physician-linked notifications such as reminder letters to encourage women to screen could increase participation or retention rates within organized cancer screening programs.^22–24 Hence, future studies assessing screening participation and retention rates should take into account physician-related factors, namely the number of visits, reminder mechanisms to encourage women to attend regular screening programs, as well as clear communication on screening recommendations for different age groups.

Our findings are consistent with those of other studies demonstrating that age, income, marital status, and education are associated with engagement with cervical cancer screening. In a previously published study assessing Pap test screening and its timing among immigrant women aged 21 to 69 in Ontario, using Canadian Community Health Survey data, not having a timely test was significantly associated with older age, being single, the presence of comorbidity, and low-income status.²⁵ Furthermore, in this study, 29% of immigrant women did not have regular access to a Pap test, and this rate increased to almost 48% among recent immigrants. In our study, adherence to screening was significantly lower among individuals with Southeast Asian or Filipino descent. In addition to ethnicity, religiosity, and women's beliefs and attitudes toward sex and cervical cancer could contribute to low adherence to the cervical cancer screening program.²⁶ In a mixed-method design study conducted among Muslim immigrant women in Ontario, religious affiliation and difficulty in having open dialogue about sexual activity were related to low frequency of regular physician visits and limited access to screening services, especially among patients with a male primary care provider.²⁶ These findings highlight the importance of clear sexual health communication between physician and patient, the availability of educational workshops about the benefits of regular screening, and addressing language barriers in screening uptake.^26–28

Consistent with our findings, previous studies showed that low socioeconomic status was significantly associated with underscreening, irrespective of immigration status.^6,9,10,16 In the study conducted by Adefemi et al., women with middle or high incomes were more likely to participate in screening programs compared to individuals with low incomes.¹⁶ In general, the coexistence of factors such as low income and education status and their potential impact on women's beliefs and attitudes toward healthcare-seeking behavior could hinder adherence to the screening programs and should be considered while implementing new screening programs in Canada.¹⁶

Our results provide further evidence of the strong association between screening engagement and age. Our findings demonstrated that the odds of being recently screened decreased with increasing age, with the lowest rate of 22.4% among individuals aged 60–69. Previous studies have reported that patients without a timely Pap test were more likely to be older.^6,29 In a qualitative study conducted in the United Kingdom exploring barriers to cervical screening in women over the age of 50, considering the age-specific characteristics and needs of older participants, including their lifestyle choices, availability of easy and fast appointment systems, physical and emotional supports, as well as physician knowledge of menopause were among contributing factors for adherence to cervical cancer screening.²⁹

Our findings provide additional insight into differential associations for certain factors that determine screening initiation versus those influencing screening maintenance. Consistent with previous studies, sociodemographic determinants associated with never having undergone cervical cancer screening (e.g. age, low income, low education) differ from predictors of being up-to-date or adherence to recommended screening intervals.³⁰ In contrast, factors related to regular health system contact (e.g. having at least one comorbidity condition, history of pregnancy, and breastfeeding) play a role in maintaining adherence over time.³¹ Future studies should further investigate factors that influence screening initiation and support ongoing adherence among populations with diverse sociodemographic characteristics.

To our knowledge, this is the first Pan-Canadian study to assess factors associated with cervical cancer screening. The harmonized questionnaires in CanPath support the internal validity of the study and comparability of datasets across the different regions.³¹ In addition, the large study sample and availability of data on different personal, social and clinical factors (e.g. race/ethnicity, self-perceived health, cigarette smoking, presence of comorbidity conditions) strengthen the study findings. However, the self-reported nature of responses could potentially affect the observed associations and the voluntary enrollment of the participants in CanPath might limit the generalizability of our findings, although due to the harmonized nature of the data the observed associations across study cohorts are unlikely to be differential.^9,10

In conclusion, almost all CanPath cohorts exceeded the national target of 80% adherence to cervical cancer screening, with slight variations among specific groups between regions. Observed associations of social, personal and clinical factors with past screening status provide a deeper insight toward implementing targeted interventions to enhance communications about screening recommendations and access to primary care provider services, and to mitigate inequalities, especially among individuals with nonwhite ethnic backgrounds, of older age and with low socioeconomic status, both at the provincial and national levels. The differential associations observed for certain factors suggest that determinants of screening initiation may differ from those influencing screening maintenance, warranting further investigation in future studies.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The data used in this research were made available by CanPath (formerly CPTP) (Regional Cohorts: BCGP, ATP, the OHS, Quebec's CARTaGENE, and the Atlantic PATH.

ORCID iD

Maryam Darvishian

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: CanPath was created with financial support from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and by Health Canada. The views expressed herein represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Health Canada. CanPath regional cohorts were also supported by the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Alberta Health Services, Alberta Health, Alberta Cancer Foundation, Alberta Health Services, Genome Quebec and the BC Cancer Foundation. Trevor JB Dummer holds the Canadian Cancer Society Chair in Cancer Primary Prevention.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Public Health Agency of Canada. Cervical cancer [Internet]. [Cited 2024 Jul 30]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/chronic-diseases/cancer/cervical-cancer.html.

Cancer CPA. Cervical cancer screening in Canada: environmental scan. Toronto Can Partnership Against Cancer; 2018. [Internet]. [Cited 2024 Jul 30]. Available from: https://www.jogc.com/article/S1701-2163(19)30739-X/fulltext

World Health Organization. Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem [Internet]. [Cited 2024 Jul 30]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240014107.

Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. Cervical cancer screening in Canada: 2021/2022. doi:https://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/topics/cervical-cancer-screening-in-canada-2021-2022/modalities-for-cervical-screening/hpv-testing/.

Cuzick

Clavel

Petry

, et al. Overview of the European and north American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2006; 119: 1095–1101.

Abdel-Rahman

. Patterns and trends of cancer screening in Canada: results from a contemporary national survey. J Natl Compr Cancer Network 2021; 19: 68–76.

Gottschlich

Payne

Trawin

, et al. Community-integrated self-collected HPV-based cervix screening in a low-resource rural setting: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial. Nat Med 2023; 29: 927–935.

Xiong

. Cervical cancer screening among Asian Canadian migrant and nonimmigrant women. Am J Health Behav 2010; 34: 131–143.

Darvishian

Moustaqim-Barrette

Awadalla

, et al. Provincial variation in adherence to breast cancer screening in Canada: evidence from the Canadian partnership for tomorrow’s health. Cancer Med 2025; 14: 1–24.

10.

Darvishian

Moustaqim-Barrette

Awadalla

, et al. Provincial variation in colorectal cancer screening adherence in Canada; evidence from the Canadian partnership for tomorrow’s health. Front Oncol 2023; 13: 1–14.

11.

Canadian Partnership against Cancer. Ending cervical cancer [Internet]. [Cited 2025 Apr 24]. Available from: https://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/annual-report/2022-2023-annual-report/year-in-review/eliminating-cervical-cancer/#:∼:text=Transitioning%20to%20primary%20HPV%20screening,fewer%20visits%20to%20the%20doctor.

12.

BC Cancer Screening. What is cervix self-screening? [Internet]. [Cited 2025 Apr 27]. Available from: http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/screening/cervix/how-it-works/what-is-cervix-self-screening.

13.

Dummer

TJB

Awadalla

Boileau

, et al. The Canadian partnership for tomorrow project: a pan-Canadian platform for research on chronic disease prevention. CMAJ 2018; 190: 710–717.

14.

von Elm

Altman

Egger

, et al. The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007; 370: 1453–1457. PubMed PMID: 18064739.

15.

Datta

Blair

Sylvestre

, et al. Cervical cancer screening in Montreal: building evidence to support primary care and policy interventions. Prev Med (Baltim) 2018; 111: 265–271.

16.

Adefemi

Knight

Zhu

, et al. Concurrent cancer screening participation and associated factors among Canadian women: insights from a cross-sectional study. J Med Screen 2025; 32: 205–214.

17.

Ince-Cushman

Correa

Shuldiner

, et al. Association of primary care physician sex with cervical cancer and mammography screening. Can Fam Physician 2013; 59: 11–18.

18.

Bouck

Calzavara

Ivers

, et al. Association of low-value testing with subsequent health care use and clinical outcomes among low-risk primary care outpatients undergoing an annual health examination. JAMA Intern Med 2020; 180: 73.

19.

Lobb

Pinto

Lofters

. Using concept mapping in the knowledge-to-action process to compare stakeholder opinions on barriers to use of cancer screening among South Asians. Implement Sci 2013; 8: 37.

20.

Wang

AMQ

Yung

Nitti

, et al. Breast and colorectal cancer screening barriers among immigrants and refugees: a mixed-methods study at three community health centres in Toronto, Canada. J Immigr Minor Health 2019; 21: 473–482.

21.

Woods

McGrail

Kliewer

, et al. Breast screening participation and retention among immigrants and nonimmigrants in British Columbia: a population-based study. Cancer Med 2018; 7: 4044–4067.

22.

Chan

Wilson

Tyldesley

, et al. Signed family physician reminder letters to women overdue for screening mammography: a randomized clinical trial. J Med Screen 2018; 25: 149–154.

23.

O’Connor

Griffiths

Underwood

, et al. Can postal prompts from general practitioners improve the uptake of breast screening? A randomised controlled trial in one east London general practice. J Med Screen 1998; 5: 49–52.

24.

Atlas

Tosteson

ANA

Wright

, et al. A multilevel primary care intervention to improve follow-up of overdue abnormal cancer screening test results. JAMA 2023; 330: 1348.

25.

Benjamin

Lamberti

Cooke

. Predictors of non-adherence to cervical cancer screening among immigrant women in Ontario, Canada. Prev Med Rep 2023; 36: 102524.

26.

Vahabi

Lofters

. Muslim immigrant women’s views on cervical cancer screening and HPV self-sampling in Ontario, Canada. BMC Public Health 2016; 16: 68.

27.

Lofters

Hwang

Moineddin

, et al. Cervical cancer screening among urban immigrants by region of origin: a population-based cohort study. Prev Med (Baltim) 2010; 51: 509–516.

28.

Johnson

Mues

Mayne

, et al. Cervical cancer screening among immigrants and ethnic minorities. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2008; 12: 232–241.

29.

Bravington

Chen

Dyson

, et al. Challenges and opportunities for cervical screening in women over the age of 50 years: a qualitative study. British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72: e873–e881.

30.

Lavecchia

Selk

Marcucci

, et al. Lifetime cervical cancer screening and social determinants of health in the Canadian longitudinal study on aging. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2025; 29: 310–319. PubMed PMID: 40323265.

31.

Worthington

McLeish

Fuller-Thomson

. Adherence over time to cervical cancer screening guidelines: insights from the Canadian national population health survey. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2012; 21: 199–208. PubMed PMID: 21988527.