Cross-sectional study assesses cancer screening adherence in women, highlighting factors influencing participation.
Background/Objectives: Cancer screening is a key strategy for reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality. This study assessed adherence to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening among Spanish women and identified factors independently associated with participation. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the 2023 Spanish Health Survey. Women eligible for mammography (40–69 years), cervical cytology (25–65 years), and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT; 50–69 years) were included. Weighted prevalence estimates were calculated, and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted separately for each screening test. Results: A total of 7454 women aged 25–69 years were analyzed. Adherence was highest for mammography (71.1%), followed by cervical cytology (64.1%) and FOBT (36.8%). Only 24.4% of women eligible for all three programs were adherent to all screening tests simultaneously. Across all screening programs, adherence was consistently associated with being born in Spain, living with a partner, greater social support, healthcare utilization, private health insurance coverage, and physical activity. Strong social support was independently associated with participation in mammography (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.35–2.20), cervical cytology (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.29–1.94), and FOBT uptake. Participation in one screening program was strongly associated with participation in the others, particularly between mammography and cervical cytology (OR 4.37; 95% CI 3.84–4.98). Conclusions: Adherence to cancer screening among Spanish women remains suboptimal, particularly for colorectal cancer. Participation appears to reflect a broader preventive health behavior pattern, with social support emerging as one of the strongest and most consistent determinants across all three screening programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ibañez-Gonzalez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: