ABSTRACT
Background: Socioeconomic conditions are strongly associated with breast and cervical cancer incidence and mortality patterns; therefore, social protection programmes (SPPs) might impact these cancers. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of SPPs on breast and cervical cancer outcomes and their risk/protective factors. Methods: Five databases were searched for articles that assessed participation in PPS and the incidence, survival, mortality (primary outcomes), screening, staging at diagnosis and risk/protective factors (secondary outcomes) for these cancers. Only peer-reviewed quantitative studies of women receiving SPPs compared to eligible women not receiving benefits were included. Independent reviewers selected articles, assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A harvest plot represents the included studies and shows the direction of effect, sample size and risk of bias. Findings: Of 17,080 documents retrieved, 43 studies were included in the review. No studies evaluated the primary outcomes. They all examined the relationship between SPPs and screening, as well as risk and protective factors. The harvest plot showed that in lower risk of bias studies, participants of SPPs had lower weight and fertility, were older at sexual debut, and breastfed their infants for longer. Interpretation: No studies have yet assessed the effect of SPPs on breast and cervical cancer incidence, survival, or mortality; nevertheless, the existing evidence suggests positive impacts on risk and protective factors.
ABSTRACT
Women face difficulties in accessing post-abortion care, as hierarchical care operates under discrimination mechanisms that condemn women in abortion. In addition, it is the Black and Brown women who are more subject to unsafe abortions and need hospitalization to complete the termination of pregnancy or treat associated complications. This study aimed at identifying factors associated with the institutional barriers in access to health services for women who underwent abortion by race/color. The survey encompassed 2640 users admitted to public hospitals in Salvador, Recife, and São Luís. Differences among covariables according to race/color (Black, Brown, and White women) were analyzed and tested for statistical significance using Pearson's χ2 test. The regression analysis initially included variables that may express the technical criteria of priority in care (time of pregnancy when abortion occurred and conditions of arrival), then the sociodemographic characteristics, and, lastly, the type of abortion declared. Black women faced more institutional difficulties (27.7% vs 19.5% in White women and 18.7% in Brown women), such as waiting to be attended and getting a bed. The association between being Black women and institutional barriers remained, even after adjustments in the regression model. Institutional racism limits access to health services and timely care for Black women, acting as a performative mechanism, legitimizing and generating exclusionary behaviors. The results demonstrate that the intersection between racial discrimination and abortion stigma redouble institutional barriers that are denominated intersectional discrimination.
