[A report of five cancer screening rates and the related measures for cancer control in the workplace, surveyed by the Corporate Action to Promote Cancer Control].

Q4 Medicine
Masanari Minamitani, Tomoya Mukai, Masayuki Tatemichi, Atsuto Katano, Jun Fukuyoshi, Keiichi Nakagawa
{"title":"[A report of five cancer screening rates and the related measures for cancer control in the workplace, surveyed by the Corporate Action to Promote Cancer Control].","authors":"Masanari Minamitani,&nbsp;Tomoya Mukai,&nbsp;Masayuki Tatemichi,&nbsp;Atsuto Katano,&nbsp;Jun Fukuyoshi,&nbsp;Keiichi Nakagawa","doi":"10.1539/sangyoeisei.2022-022-B","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Most cancer control measures in the workplace have limited supporting evidence. This study aimed to identify highly effective cancer control measures, based on a survey by the Corporate Action to Promote Cancer Control.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The firms and organizations that responded to the web survey were included. The questionnaire comprised five cancer (stomach, lung, colorectal, breast, and cervical) screening rates and their countermeasures to promote cancer control. We conducted a non-hierarchical cluster analysis according to the degree of the measures and compared the screening rates among each group using an analysis of variance. Then, we performed two multiple regression analyses with the mean screening rates for stomach/lung/colorectal cancer and breast/cervical cancer as dependent variables, the implementation of each countermeasure as an independent variable, and the size and industry as control variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We obtained responses from 704 firms and organizations. The three groups classified by cluster analysis were defined as active, moderate, and negative. For all cancer screenings, the main effects were significant, and multiple comparisons revealed that the difference between the active and negative groups (ts > 3.30, ps < .01, Hedges' ds > 0.73) and the moderate and negative groups (ts > 3.70, ps < .01, Hedges' ds > 0.88) were significant. For the four cancers other than lung, the difference between the active and moderate groups was not significant (ts < 0.21, ps < .84, Hedges' ds < 0.02), and for lung, the difference was significant, but the effect size was small. The multiple regression analyses revealed that \"distribution of colorectal cancer test kits to all subjects\" (β = 0.14) was significant for stomach, lung, and colorectal cancer, while \"financial supports for cancer screening\" (β = 0.24), \"screening as part of employment\" (β = 0.18), and \"careful screening of female subjects\" (β = 0.17) were significant for breast and cervical cancer, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified effective countermeasures for cancer control in the workplace, and these measures will help increase cancer screening rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":40039,"journal":{"name":"Sangyo eiseigaku zasshi = Journal of occupational health","volume":" ","pages":"231-247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sangyo eiseigaku zasshi = Journal of occupational health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1539/sangyoeisei.2022-022-B","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Most cancer control measures in the workplace have limited supporting evidence. This study aimed to identify highly effective cancer control measures, based on a survey by the Corporate Action to Promote Cancer Control.

Methods: The firms and organizations that responded to the web survey were included. The questionnaire comprised five cancer (stomach, lung, colorectal, breast, and cervical) screening rates and their countermeasures to promote cancer control. We conducted a non-hierarchical cluster analysis according to the degree of the measures and compared the screening rates among each group using an analysis of variance. Then, we performed two multiple regression analyses with the mean screening rates for stomach/lung/colorectal cancer and breast/cervical cancer as dependent variables, the implementation of each countermeasure as an independent variable, and the size and industry as control variables.

Results: We obtained responses from 704 firms and organizations. The three groups classified by cluster analysis were defined as active, moderate, and negative. For all cancer screenings, the main effects were significant, and multiple comparisons revealed that the difference between the active and negative groups (ts > 3.30, ps < .01, Hedges' ds > 0.73) and the moderate and negative groups (ts > 3.70, ps < .01, Hedges' ds > 0.88) were significant. For the four cancers other than lung, the difference between the active and moderate groups was not significant (ts < 0.21, ps < .84, Hedges' ds < 0.02), and for lung, the difference was significant, but the effect size was small. The multiple regression analyses revealed that "distribution of colorectal cancer test kits to all subjects" (β = 0.14) was significant for stomach, lung, and colorectal cancer, while "financial supports for cancer screening" (β = 0.24), "screening as part of employment" (β = 0.18), and "careful screening of female subjects" (β = 0.17) were significant for breast and cervical cancer, respectively.

Conclusions: We identified effective countermeasures for cancer control in the workplace, and these measures will help increase cancer screening rates.

[由促进癌症控制的公司行动调查的癌症五项筛查率和工作场所癌症控制的相关措施的报告]。
目的:大多数癌症工作场所控制措施的支持证据有限。本研究旨在根据促进癌症控制的企业行动组织的调查,确定高效的癌症控制措施。方法:包括对网络调查做出回应的公司和组织。该问卷包括五种癌症(胃、肺、结肠直肠癌、乳腺癌和宫颈癌)筛查率及其促进癌症控制的对策。我们根据测量的程度进行了非层次聚类分析,并使用方差分析比较了各组的筛查率。然后,我们进行了两次多元回归分析,以胃/肺/结直肠癌癌症和乳腺/宫颈癌症的平均筛查率为因变量,每种对策的实施情况为自变量,规模和行业为控制变量。结果:我们获得了704家公司和组织的回复。通过聚类分析将这三组分为活跃组、中度组和阴性组。对于所有癌症筛查,主要效果是显著的,多重比较显示,活动组和阴性组(ts>3.30,ps<.01,Hedges’s>0.73)与中度和阴性组之间的差异(ts>3.70,ps<.001,Hedges's ds>0.88)是显著的。对于除肺癌以外的四种癌症,活动组和中度组之间的差异不显著(ts<0.21,ps<.84,Hedges’s ds<0.02),对于肺癌,差异显著,但影响较小。多元回归分析显示,“向所有受试者分发癌症检测试剂盒”(β=0.14)对胃、肺和癌症具有显著意义,而“癌症筛查的财政支持”(β=0.24)、“作为就业一部分的筛查”(β=0.018)和“仔细筛查女性受试者”(β0.17)对乳腺癌和宫颈癌具有显著意义,分别地结论:我们确定了工作场所癌症控制的有效对策,这些措施将有助于提高癌症筛查率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信