Brazilian Survey on Preventive Actions for the Population With Access to Primary Healthcare: Inefficient Spending in a Country in Economic Crisis

Background

Cancer ranks second as a cause of death in Brazil, and an estimated 625 000 new cases will be diagnosed in the year 2020.¹ In this area, Brazil faces a challenge similar to that of the triple burden of disease, when the country needs to organize the health system to assist people with infectious diseases, chronic diseases, and external causes (violence and accidents), which is a typical characteristic of developing countries. That is, while cancers typical of developed countries are among the most prevalent ones in Brazil, the country still has high rates of cancer of the cervix, stomach, and esophagus, which are more common in low-income and middle-income countries. Except for non-melanoma skin cancer, the five most prevalent cancers in women are of the breast, colon/rectum, cervix, lung, and thyroid. Among men, the most prevalent is prostate cancer, followed by colorectal, lung, stomach, and oral cavity cancers.¹

Organized screening programs can have a positive impact on cancer-specific mortality and improve quality of life in some types of cancer.² However, the effectiveness of an organized screening program is dependent on the quality of each process step: selection of the target population, choice of screening method and interval defined by the best evidence, establishment and audit of quality standards, continuous monitoring and evaluation, and adequate infrastructure and financial resources. Without these conditions, screening poses a potential risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment for patients, and the program becomes inefficient for the health system.³ Organized screening programs with a positive effect include screening for cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, and less robustly, screening for breast cancer.^3-5

Two opportunistic cancer screening programs are currently available in Brazil: for cervical cancer and breast cancer.^6-8 These programs are considered opportunistic because they partially meet the requirements systematized by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization (WHO), as they mainly fail in actions related to monitoring and evaluation.^9-11 In addition to screening programs, over the past 25 years the country has implemented other public policies in the fight against cancer, mostly in an isolated manner. These policies include smoking-related interventions, which were responsible for reducing the prevalence of smokers from 35% in 1989 to 11% in 2014, with an expected decrease in the incidence of lung cancer in the coming decades.^1,12 In recent years, in addition to population actions, the country has intensified the treatment of tobacco dependence in primary healthcare (PHC) by expanding the purchase and distribution of medications, publishing clinical guidelines, and providing financial incentives for smoking cessation activities.¹² Treatment of tobacco dependence is one of the most cost-effective health interventions and is directly related to the prevention of lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and pulmonary disorders.

In Brazil, an important community-based approach to provide PHC is the Family Health Strategy (FHS). FHS teams are multidisciplinary healthcare teams organized geographically, covering areas of approximately 3500 patients each. The FHS was designed to reflect best practices and to facilitate first-contact care by locating PHC teams close to people’s homes, and the strategy currently covers 63% of the Brazilian population.^13,14 A recent study found that the third most common reason for encounter in Brazilian PHC is related to seeking preventive medicine.¹⁵ Therefore, preventive interventions are part of the daily routine of the FHS teams, including cancer screening programs and treatment of tobacco dependence.^15,16 A consequence of the large number of encounters with a preventive focus is the overuse of medical interventions. These interventions, in turn, also have consequences that range from individual harms,^17,18 generated by false-positive results, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment,^19,20 to the production of inequities in health systems (collective harms).

Brazil currently faces an economic crisis, exacerbated by the pandemic, with an expected decrease in public financing of healthcare and a natural continuous increase in expenditures, which may further aggravate the chronic underfunding of the Brazilian public health system. It is therefore more than ever necessary that the government prioritize effective and efficient public policies based on the best available evidence.

Given the great impact of cancer on the morbidity and mortality rates of the country, the high frequency of encounters in PHC for prevention, the evidence supporting interventions for early cancer detection and smoking cessation, and the country’s economic crisis scenario, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the adequacy of requests for screening tests in relation to the Brazilian government’s clinical guidelines and the provision of treatment of tobacco dependence by the FHS teams. We hypothesized that about 30% of requests for screening tests would be inadequate.

Methods

This study analyzed cross-sectional data from a larger project evaluating the Mais Médicos (More Doctors) Program. The data were collected nationwide from July to December 2016, and the main purpose of the survey was to assess whether the FHS teams are oriented (aligned) with the principles and attributes of PHC.²¹ The Primary Care Assessment Tool validated in Brazil (PCATool-Brazil) was used to survey PHC service users.^22,23

Briefly, PHC units across the country were divided into the five Brazilian geographic regions proportionally to the number of physicians with and without residency. Physicians and service users were approached by the researchers, who informed them of the study purpose and explained that participation was voluntary. Physicians were eligible for inclusion if they had been working in the same PHC unit for at least one year. Twelve consecutive adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with at least two encounters were included per participating physician and made up the sample of service users. A sample size of 6193 service users (516 physicians) was required to detect a difference of 0.3 points in PCATool-Brazil total score, with a power of 80% and 5% significance, given an anticipated dropout rate of 20%. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to inclusion in the study.

Data were collected by trained interviewers using an electronic device for data entry. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with both service users and physicians, but only the data from service users were analyzed in the present study. A structured questionnaire was administered to the service users, followed by the short version of the PCATool-Brazil for adult users. The structured questionnaire contained the questions that generated the data analyzed in the present study, which are described in Box 1, and also included information on socioeconomic and health status, utilization of PHC services, and type of care received in the PHC unit. These questions were developed based on questionnaires previously used in large national surveys (eg, National Household Sample Survey).²⁴

In order to assess the adequacy of interventions related to cervical, breast, and prostate cancer screening, the following indicators were calculated: (a) Coverage (proportion of individuals screened among those with an indication – age defined for screening); (b) Focus (proportion of individuals with an indication according to age group among the total screened); (c) Screening errors: overscreening (tests in individuals with no indication among the total number of individuals outside the screening population) and underscreening (tests not requested for individuals meeting criteria among the total number of individuals meeting criteria); and (d) Screening ratio (percentage of screening tests requested for people meeting criteria to the percentage of screening tests requested for those not meeting criteria).^25,26

We performed a review of the official Brazilian guidelines and evidence from the literature on the screening of these four types of cancer and on the screening and treatment of tobacco dependence. Based on this review, we defined the population parameters that were used to assess the adequacy of the results. These parameters are summarized in Table 1.

The authors decided to include in this article the evaluation of the request for transvaginal ultrasound as a screening tool for ovarian cancer despite the lack of evidence and guidelines to support screening for this cancer, based on the hypothesis that this was a common practice in PHC services.

A descriptive analysis was performed using PAWS Statistics for Windows, version 18.0. Tables and charts were created in Excel Office 2010. Service users with incomplete data were excluded from the analysis.

Results

The present study population consisted of 6160 PHC service users who were interviewed in the umbrella project from July to December 2016, which accounted for 99.5% of the required sample size. Table 2 shows the characteristics of the study population in comparison with the Brazilian general population. Of the total number of women evaluated for cervical, breast, and ovarian cancer screening, 18, 13, and 6, respectively, were excluded from the analyses due to incomplete data. Of the total number of men evaluated for prostate cancer screening, 15 were excluded for the same reason. Regarding smoking, 54 service users had incomplete data.

The results for cervical, breast, and prostate cancer screening are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The screening coverage rate of individuals in the correct age range was 66.0% for cervical cancer, 59.0% for breast cancer, and 62.0% for prostate cancer. The screening tests performed were appropriate for age in 76.8% of cases for cervical cancer, in 53.6% for breast cancer, and in only 46.8% for prostate cancer.

When analyzing the population that is not within the screening profile in terms of age and periodicity (overscreening), the results showed that, on average, tests were requested for 33.5% of this population. From a population perspective, none of the cancer types were underscreened.

The results for screening ratio were lower than expected. Regarding cervical cancer, the results showed that screened women were only 1.3 times more likely to meet than not to meet the age-group criterion.

Regarding ovarian cancer, due to the lack of evidence for its screening, evaluation measures were not calculated. The results showed that, in 49.5% of all transvaginal ultrasound scans requested, women denied any gynecological complaints, such as pain and vaginal bleeding, which indicates that tests were requested for asymptomatic women.

The prevalence of smoking in the study population was 11%. The results showed that 33% of the interviewees were not asked about smoking habits in the past 12 months by health professionals in the PHC unit, which indicates underscreening. When analyzing only the group of people who reported being smokers, 31% did not receive recommendations to stop smoking (undertreatment).

Discussion

The main result of this study was that the recommendations of the Brazilian Ministry of Health for cervical, breast, and prostate cancer screening, as well as for the treatment of tobacco dependence, are not being adequately followed by the FHS teams. This is also a common finding in the international literature evaluating screening programs in low-income and middle-income countries.⁴⁵

The rates for screening coverage of individuals in the correct age range for cervical cancer and breast cancer were above the expected rates of 33% and 50%, respectively, from a population perspective, which indicates overscreening in the correct age range—using as a reference for periodicity, tests performed one year before the study. In prostate cancer there is no comparison parameter, as there is no indication for population screening. The screening focus (correct age) was inadequate for the three types of cancer. If the screening focus were calculated based on the periodicity recommended by national guidelines, the rates would be even lower: 38%, 45%, and 37% for cervical, breast, and prostate cancer, respectively.

There is overuse of tests in the target population for cervical and breast cancer screening, a misleading focus of tests on people not meeting the predetermined criteria, exposure of non-target populations to overscreening, and poor guidance on treatment of tobacco dependence.

Regarding breast cancer screening, the results are compatible with some data from the literature, such as the results of Tomazelli et al,⁴⁶ Freitas-Junior et al,⁴⁷ and Corrêa et al,⁴⁸ who reported that only 51%, 54% and 51%, respectively, of screening mammograms performed in Brazil were within the recommended age range, a finding comparable to that reported in the present study (53%). However, conflicting results emerged when comparing for screening focus (appropriate age and periodicity). The present study found that 45% of the screening tests were adequate in terms of age and periodicity, against 32% reported by Tomazelli et al⁴⁶ and Corrêa et al.⁴⁸ The fact that periodicity was only estimated in the present study may explain the difference.

As for cervical cancer screening, our findings are slightly different from the literature. The literature reports a deficit of screening tests,⁴⁹ whereas the present study found an overuse of screening tests similar to that reported by Vale et al.⁵⁰ This difference can also be explained by the different modes of calculation, in relation to both periodicity and actual need for screening, and by our data collection strategy, whose target audience was patients attending PHC units. Regarding the percentage of tests performed in the correct age range, the WHO recommendation is 80%³ and the official rate in Brazil is 79%⁵¹– the result found in the present study was slightly lower than these rates (76%) but comparable to that reported in national^50,52 and international surveys.^53,54

Although there is no guidance on prostate cancer screening, our results show that patients have been screened for this type of cancer—a finding supported by the national report on prostate cancer of the Brazilian National Cancer Institute⁵⁵ and by data from the study of Santiago et al.⁵⁶ In addition, when performed, screening does not focus on the age group of patients who would most benefit from it, since more than 50% of the tests were performed in men outside the recommended age range. The percentage of men screened for prostate cancer (52%), regardless of age and symptoms, was comparable to that reported by Amorim et al.⁵⁷ It is important to note that there are numerous guidelines in Brazil (from the executive branch, from the legislative branch, and from medical societies), and many of them contradict each other in relation to cancer screening, which makes decisions more difficult for health professionals and patients.

Another important finding is that, on average, 33% of people who are not part of the target population of the national screening guidelines were subjected to unnecessary or low-value tests. Narrowing the focus to the target population is part of the actions undertaken to reduce overutilization and its harms in screening programs, as well as a goal to obtain better results from the programs. In addition, almost 50% of transvaginal ultrasound scans were requested for asymptomatic women. These findings are supported by evidence from international studies addressing the overuse of medical interventions and their hazards, including false-positive results, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment.^58,59 This also highlights the lack of quaternary prevention and patient safety practices in PHC in Brazil.

Overuse of medical tests can trigger a cascade of diagnostic studies with individual and systemic implications.¹⁷ For the health system, it implies less effectiveness resulting from the use of financial and technical resources in activities that do not generate benefits. For the population, in addition to the inefficient use of resources, there is a waste of time for the patient, who is subjected to unnecessary tests and exposed to risks, tangible and intangible, related to overscreening and, consequently, overdiagnosis and overtreatment.⁴⁶ This finding also has an impact on the (symptomatic) population that needs to undergo diagnostic rather than screening tests, as they end up competing with each other for resources that are scarce and poorly allocated. Inappropriate use of finite resources reduces the supply of tests available for those who really need them, leading to inefficiency of the health system.

This study indicates that the population served by the FHS teams has been subjected to excessive and potentially iatrogenic interventions. In this respect, practices related to quaternary prevention should be encouraged in PHC to prevent harms and to increase the effectiveness and equity of the Brazilian health system.¹⁷

Regarding smoking, the Brazilian National Health Interview Survey reports a prevalence of smokers of 14.7%,⁶⁰ whereas the present study found a slightly lower rate of 11%; however, our study had a service-based rather than a population-based approach. Smoking has been associated with one-third of all cancer deaths, and both individual and population-based interventions on cessation are essential actions given their impact and cost-effectiveness in the control of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and chronic lung diseases.⁶¹ In view of this evidence, it is noteworthy our finding that 30% of smokers were not approached by the FHS teams for treatment, which leaves room for further qualification of the teams and expansion of access to treatment of tobacco dependence, considering that the national policy determines that this is the responsibility of PHC.

The results of the present study show that screening approaches are used by physicians based on their own discretion in the medical consultation rather than on the definition of the PHC service. This decision appears to be made at an individual (rather than population) level, disregarding whether individual characteristics are outside or within the criteria of the Brazilian Ministry of Health or best-evidence standards.

The limitations of this study include its cross-sectional design and the impossibility of statistically analyzing the relationship of our findings with the individual characteristics of service users, health professionals, or the service itself because the results evaluated population-based patterns. Additionally, recall bias may have been present due to the 12-month time-frame used for the questions on the tests performed. Loss of service users may have also reduced the representativeness of findings. In cervical and breast cancer screening, limitations included the lack of information on cancer-related symptoms and the interval used in the study, which is different from that usually used in this type of study. The level of external validity is debatable, as the study is limited to people enrolled in the FHS; it is not a nationwide population-based study. It is also important to consider that self-report data served as the basis for analysis. The research data on requests for screening tests were obtained from a single source (the patient), and it is known that patients tend to overestimate self-care practices when self-reported. However, we did not have access to patients’ medical records to confirm the data. The strength of the study is the production of novel results for the country.

Conclusion

The results of this first national survey, which addresses the quality of screening actions in the population enrolled in the FHS, show that the first step of organized screening programs (focused on the target population) has not been adequately followed. This reduces the likelihood of a protective effect against possible harms from unnecessary interventions.³

The inadequacy of requests for screening tests and the low rates of recommendation for treatment of tobacco dependence indicate low-quality care in the FHS and reveal the iatrogenic potential of preventive interventions. Considering that prevention is the third most common reason for encounter in Brazilian PHC, it is essential that screening actions are the target of further research for a better understanding of this practice and its effects.

It is also an ethical imperative that the country reassesses all programs related to early cancer detection.¹⁸ Expanding program monitoring and assessment is a key step for efficient implementation of organized screening programs.⁴³

The economic impact of such low-quality care should also be investigated so that the managers of the Brazilian public health system are provided with sufficient evidence to prioritize more cost-effective actions. In the current Brazilian scenario, implementing actions for early diagnosis and timely treatment can be more cost-effective than applying opportunistic screening programs.

Ethical issues

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (approval number 1.219.926).

Competing interests

Authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

Conception and design: PSC, EH, MRG, LH, SM, MA, RR, and LW. Acquisition of data: PSC, AD, RAMS, and LH. Analysis and interpretation of data: PSC, EH, MRG, SM, LH. Drafting of the manuscript: PSC. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: EH, MRG, and SM. Statistical analysis: EH, LH, and PSC. Obtaining funding: EH. Administrative, technical, or material support: PSC, LH, AD, and RAMS. Supervision: EH. All authors have read and approved the final version of the article.

Funding

The research was funded by the Pan American Health Organization.

References

1. Instituto Nacional de Câncer (INCA). Estimativa 2020. Incidência de câncer no Brasil. 2020. https://www.inca.gov.br/sites/ufu.sti.inca.local/files/media/document/estimativa-2020-incidencia-de-cancer-no-brasil.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2020.
2. Rabeneck L, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I. Assessment of a cancer screening program. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2015; 29(6):979-985. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2015.09.009 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
3. World Health Organization (WHO). Cancer Control Knowledge into Action. WHO Guide for Effective Programmes. Early Detection. 2007. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43743/9241547338_eng.pdf;jsessionid=766DBB85136951641C7264DB7337A40F?sequence=1. Accessed September 22, 2020.
4. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013(6):CD001877. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub5 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
5. Holme Ø, Bretthauer M, Fretheim A, Odgaard-Jensen J, Hoff G. Flexible sigmoidoscopy versus faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(9):CD009259. 10.1002/14651858.CD009259.pub2.
6. Maia MN, da Silva RP, dos Santos LP. A organização do rastreamento do câncer do colo uterino por uma equipe de Saúde da Família no Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Rev Bras Med Fam Comunidade 2018; 13(40):1-10. doi: 10.5712/rbmfc13(40)1633 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
7. Derchain S, Teixeira JC, Zeferino LC. Organized, population-based cervical cancer screening program: it would be a good time for Brazil now. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2016; 38(4):161-163. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1582399 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
8. Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva (INCA). Diretrizes brasileiras para o rastreamento do cancer do colo do utero. Coordenação de Prevenção e Vigilância. Divisão de Detecção Precoce e Apoio à Organização de Rede, editor. Ministério da Saúde; 2016. p. 114. http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/controle_cancer. Accessed September 22, 2020.
9. Rodrigues DCN, Freitas-Junior R, Rahal RMS. Temporal changes in breast cancer screening coverage provided under the Brazilian National Health Service between 2008 and 2017. BMC Public Health 2019; 19(1):959. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7278-z [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
10. da Silva Teixeira L, Araújo Neto LA. Still controversial: early detection and screening for breast cancer in Brazil, 1950-2010s. Med Hist 2020; 64(1):52-70. doi: 10.1017/mdh.2019.76 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
11. Lima MS, de Abreu Costa Brito É, Siqueira HFF. Trends in cervical cancer and its precursor forms to evaluate screening policies in a mid-sized Northeastern Brazilian city. PLoS One 2020; 15(5):e0233354. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233354 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
12. da Silva ST, Martins MC, de Faria FR, Cotta RM. [Combating smoking in Brazil: the strategic importance of government actions]. Cien Saude Colet 2014; 19(2):539-552. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232014192.19802012 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
13. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. e-Gestor. Atenção Básica. Informação e Gestão da Atenção Básica. Cobertura da Atenção Básica. https://egestorab.saude.gov.br/paginas/acessoPublico/relatorios/relHistoricoCoberturaAB.xhtml. Accessed September 22, 2020.
14. Andrade MV, Coelho AQ, Xavier Neto M, de Carvalho LR, Atun R, Castro MC. Transition to universal primary health care coverage in Brazil: analysis of uptake and expansion patterns of Brazil’s Family Health Strategy (1998-2012). PLoS One 2018; 13(8):e0201723. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201723 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
15. Chueiri PS, Gonçalves MR, Hauser L. Reasons for encounter in primary health care in Brazil. Fam Pract 2020; 37(5):648-654. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmaa029 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
16. Gusso GD. Diagnóstico de demanda em Florianópolis utilizando a Classificação Internacional de Atenção Primária: 2a edição (CIAP-2) [dissertation]. São Paulo: Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo (USP); 2009. 10.11606/T.5.2009.tde-08032010-164025.
17. Norman AH, Tesser CD. [Quaternary prevention in primary care: a necessity for the Brazilian Unified National Health System]. Cad Saude Publica 2009; 25(9):2012-2020. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2009000900015 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
18. Jung M. Breast, prostate, and thyroid cancer screening tests and overdiagnosis. Curr Probl Cancer 2017; 41(1):71-79. doi: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2016.11.006 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
19. Jacklyn G, Bell K, Hayen A. Assessing the efficacy of cancer screening. Public Health Res Pract 2017; 27(3):2731727. doi: 10.17061/phrp2731727 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
20. Shieh Y, Eklund M, Sawaya GF, Black WC, Kramer BS, Esserman LJ. Population-based screening for cancer: hope and hype. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2016; 13(9):550-565. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.50 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
21. Rech MRA, Hauser L, Wollmann L. [Primary health care performance in Brazil and association with the More Doctors physician recruitment programCalidad de la atención primaria de salud en Brasil y relación con el Programa Más Médicos]. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2018; 42:e164. doi: 10.26633/rpsp.2018.164 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
22. Shi L, Starfield B, Xu J. Validating the adult primary care assessment tool. J Fam Pract 2001; 50(2):161. [ Google Scholar]
23. Harzheim E, de Oliveira MM, Agostinho MR. Validação do instrumento de avaliação da atenção primária à saúde: PCATool-Brasil adultos. Rev Bras Med Fam Comunidade 2013; 8(29):274-284. doi: 10.5712/rbmfc8(29)829 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
24. Stopa SR, Szwarcwald CL, de Oliveira MM. National Health Survey 2019: history, methods and perspectives. Epidemiol Serv Saude 2020; 29(5):e2020315. doi: 10.1590/s1679-49742020000500004 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
25. Duro LN, Assunção MC, da Costa JS, Santos IS. Desempenho da solicitação do perfil lipídico entre os setores público e privado. Rev Saude Publica 2008; 42(1):82-88. doi: 10.1590/s0034-89102008000100011 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
26. Instituto Nacional do Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva (INCA). Ficha técnica de indicadores das ações de controle do câncer do colo do útero. https://www.inca.gov.br/sites/ufu.sti.inca.local/files//media/document//fichatecnicaindicadorescolo14.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2020. Published 2014.
27. U.S. Preventive Services. Task Force. Final Recommendation Statement. Cervical Cancer: Screening. 2018. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/cervical-cancer-screening. Accessed April 7, 2021.
28. Dickinson J, Tsakonas E, Conner Gorber S. Recommendations on screening for cervical cancer. CMAJ 2013; 185(1):35-45. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.121505 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
29. Everett T, Bryant A, Griffin MF, Martin-Hirsch PP, Forbes CA, Jepson RG. Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 2011(5):CD002834. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002834.pub2 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
30. Migowski A. Interpretation of the new guidelines for breast cancer early detection in Brazil. Cad Saude Publica 2016; 32(8):e00111516. doi: 10.1590/0102-311x00111516 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
31. Klarenbach S, Sims-Jones N, Lewin G. Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer. CMAJ 2018; 190(49):E1441-E1451. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.180463 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
32. U.S. Preventive Services. Task Force. Final Recommendation Statement. Breast Cancer: Screening. 2016. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/breast-cancer-screening. Accessed April 7, 2021.
33. Instituto Nacional do Câncer (INCA). Câncer de ovário - versão para Profissionais de Saúde. https://www.inca.gov.br/tipos-de-cancer/cancer-de-ovario/profissional-de-saude. Accessed September 22, 2020. Published 2018.
34. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC). Screening for ovarian cancer: US preventive services task force reaffirmation recommendation statement. https://canadiantaskforce.ca/guidelines/appraised-guidelines/ovarian-cancer/. Accessed April 7, 2021. Published 2013.
35. U.S. Preventive Services. Task Force. Final Recommendation Statement. Ovarian Cancer: Screening. 2018. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/ovarian-cancer-screening. Accessed April 7, 2021.
36. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Nota Técnica conjunta n.º 001/2015. https://www.inca.gov.br/sites/ufu.sti.inca.local/files//media/document//nota-tecnica-saude-do-homem-ms.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2020. Published 2015.
37. Bell N, Connor Gorber S, Shane A. Recommendations on screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen test. CMAJ 2014; 186(16):1225-1234. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.140703 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
38. U.S. Preventive Services. Task Force. Final Recommendation Statement. Prostate Cancer: Screening. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/prostate-cancer-screening. Accessed April 7, 2021. Published 2018.
39. Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, Dahm P. Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(1):CD004720. 10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3.
40. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Cadernos de Atenção Básica. Estratégias para o cuidado da pessoa com doença crônica: o cuidado da pessoa tabagista. http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/caderno_40.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2020. Published 2015.
41. World Health Organization (WHO). Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI). Policy recommendations for smoking cessation and treatment of tobacco dependence. https://www.who.int/tobacco/resources/publications/tobacco_dependence/en/. Accessed September 22, 2020.
42. U.S. Preventive Services. Task Force. Final Recommendation Statement. Interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant persons. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/tobacco-use-in-adults-and-pregnant-women-counseling-and-interventions. Accessed April 7, 2021. Published 2021.
43. Marcano Belisario JS, Bruggeling MN, Gunn LH, Brusamento S, Car J. Interventions for recruiting smokers into cessation programmes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 12(12):CD009187. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009187.pub2 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
44. Lancaster T, Stead LF. Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 3(3):CD001292. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001292.pub3 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
45. Sivaram S, Majumdar G, Perin D. Population-based cancer screening programmes in low-income and middle-income countries: regional consultation of the International Cancer Screening Network in India. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19(2):e113-e122. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30003-2 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
46. Tomazelli JG, Migowski A, Ribeiro CM, de Assis M, de Abreu DMF. Avaliação das ações de detecção precoce do câncer de mama no Brasil por meio de indicadores de processo: estudo descritivo com dados do Sismama, 2010-2011. Epidemiol Serv Saude 2016; 26(1):61-70. doi: 10.5123/s1679-49742017000100007 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
47. Freitas-Junior R, Rodrigues DC, Corrêa RD, Peixoto JE, de Oliveira HV, Rahal RM. Contribution of the Unified Health Care System to mammography screening in Brazil, 2013. Radiol Bras 2016; 49(5):305-310. doi: 10.1590/0100-3984.2014.0129 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
48. Corrêa CSL, Pereira LC, Leite ICG, Fayer VA, Guerra MR, Bustamante-Teixeira MT. Breast Cancer screening in Minas Gerais: assessment of data from information health systems of the Brazilian National Health System. Epidemiol Serv Saude 2017; 26(3):481-492. doi: 10.5123/s1679-49742017000300006 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
49. Ribeiro CM, Silva GAE. Assessment of the production of cervical cancer care procedures in the Brazilian National Health System in 2015. Epidemiol Serv Saude 2018; 27(1):e20172124. doi: 10.5123/s1679-49742018000100004 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
50. Vale DB, Menin TL, Bragança JF, Teixeira JC, Cavalcante LA, Zeferino LC. Estimating the public health impact of a national guideline on cervical cancer screening: an audit study of a program in Campinas, Brazil. BMC Public Health 2019; 19(1):1492. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7846-2 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
51. Instituto Nacional do Câncer (INCA). Boletim ano 9, n.o 1, Janeiro/Junho de 2018. Monitoramento das ações do controle dos Cânceres de colo de útero. https://www.inca.gov.br/sites/ufu.sti.inca.local/files//media/document//informativo_deteccao_precoce_numero1_2018.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2020. Published 2018.
52. Lopes VAS, Ribeiro JM. Cervical cancer control limiting factors and facilitators: a literature review. Cien Saude Colet 2019; 24(9):3431-3442. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232018249.32592017 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
53. Basu P, Nessa A, Majid M, Rahman JN, Ahmed T. Evaluation of the National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme of Bangladesh and the formulation of quality assurance guidelines. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2010; 36(3):131-134. doi: 10.1783/147118910791749218 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
54. Parham GP, Mwanahamuntu MH, Kapambwe S. Population-level scale-up of cervical cancer prevention services in a low-resource setting: development, implementation, and evaluation of the cervical cancer prevention program in Zambia. PLoS One 2015; 10(4):e0122169. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122169 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
55. Instituto Nacional do Câncer (INCA). Boletim ano 8, nº 2, julho/dezembro 2017. Monitoramento das ações de controle do câncer de próstata. http://www.saude.df.gov.br/wp-conteudo/uploads/2018/03/Informativo-Câncer-de-Próstata-2017.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2020. Published 2017.
56. Santiago LM, Luz LL, da Silva JF, Mattos IE. [Prevalence and factors associated with conducting screening tests for prostate cancer in the elderly in Juiz de Fora in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil]. Cien Saude Colet 2013; 18(12):3535-3542. doi: 10.1590/s1413-81232013001200010 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
57. Amorim VM, de Azevedo Barros MB, César CL, Goldbaum M, Carandina L, Alves MC. [Factors associated with prostate cancer screening: a population-based study]. Cad Saude Publica 2011; 27(2):347-356. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2011000200016 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
58. Morgan DJ, Dhruva SS, Coon ER, Wright SM, Korenstein D. 2018 update on medical overuse. JAMA Intern Med 2019; 179(2):240-246. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5748 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
59. Peer RF, Shabir N. Iatrogenesis: a review on nature, extent, and distribution of healthcare hazards. J Family Med Prim Care 2018; 7(2):309-314. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_329_17 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
60. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv91110.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2020. Published 2014.
61. Kahende JW, Loomis BR, Adhikari B, Marshall L. A review of economic evaluations of tobacco control programs. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2009; 6(1):51-68. doi: 10.3390/ijerph6010051 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]