Analysis of sedentariness in women from a gender and equity perspective.

ABSTRACTThis cross-sectional study aimed to analyse the social and gender-related factors influencing sedentariness in women, including occupation and family size (FS). We included women aged 45-70 years participating in the Breast Cancer Screening Programme of the Valencia Region (BCSP-VR) between November 2018 and October 2019 (n = 121,988). The response variable was sedentariness measured by sitting time in hours/day (h/day) (<3 h/day and ≥3 h/day). The explanatory variables were age, educational level, country of origin, living alone, childcare responsibilities, FS, disability, body mass index (BMI) and smoking status. Logistic regression models were adjusted for the whole sample and were stratified by occupation and FS. The variables that increased the odds of sedentariness were age ≥65 years (OR = 1.28; CI = 1.20-1.36), high educational level (OR = 1.39; CI = 1.31-1.47), non-manual occupation (OR = 2.38; CI = 2.27-2.48), living alone (OR = 1.11; CI = 1.05-1.17), disability (OR = 1.37; CI = 1.20-1.56) and BMI ≥ 30 (OR = 1.33; CI = 1.28-1.38). The variables decreasing the odds were large (OR = 0.90; CI = 0.87-0.96) and medium FS (OR = 0.93; CI = 0.90-0.97). Older age, high educational level and high BMI conferred a higher odd of sedentary lifestyle, independently of occupation and FS with statistical differences. Protective factors were childcare responsibilities in non-working women (OR = 0.86; CI = 0.74-0.99), large FS in women with manual occupations (OR = 0.88; CI = 0.80-0.97) and medium FS in housewives (OR = 0.91; CI = 0.86-0.97). This study identified social and gender-related inequalities in the factors influencing sedentariness, which were related to the type of occupation and FS.Highlights There are social and gender inequalities in the factors influencing sedentarinessNon-manual occupation increases the risk of sedentary lifestyleBelonging to a medium or large family decreases the risk of sedentary behaviourChildcare responsibilities are related to lower sitting time throughout the day.

Social mobility and healthy behaviours from a gender perspective in the Spanish multicase-control study (MCC-Spain).

There is evidence for the influence of socioeconomic status (SES) on healthy behaviours but the effect of social mobility (SM) is not yet well known. This study aims to analyse the influence of origin and destination SES (O-SES and D-SES) and SM on healthy behaviours and co-occurrence, from an integrated gender and age perspective. Data were obtained from the controls of MCC-Spain between 2008-2013 (3,606 participants). Healthy behaviours considered: healthy diet, moderate alcohol consumption, non-smoking and physical activity. SM was categorized as stable high, upward, stable medium, downward or stable low. Binary and multinomial logistic regression models were adjusted. Those aged <65, with a low O-SES, D-SES and stable low SM are less likely to have healthy behaviours in the case of both women (physically active: OR = 0.65 CI = 0.45-0.94, OR = 0.71 CI = 0.52-0.98, OR = 0.61 CI = 0.41-0.91) and men (non-smokers: OR = 0.44 CI = 0.26-0.76, OR = 0.54 CI = 0.35-0.83, OR = 0.41 CI 0.24-0.72; physically active: OR = 0.57 CI = 0.35-0.92, OR = 0.64 CI = 0.44-0.95, OR = 0.53 CI = 0.23-0.87). However, for those aged ≥65, this probability is higher in women with a low O-SES and D-SES (non-smoker: OR = 8.09 CI = 4.18-15.67, OR = 4.14 CI = 2.28-7.52; moderate alcohol consumption: OR = 3.00 CI = 1.45-6.24, OR = 2.83 CI = 1.49-5.37) and in men with a stable low SM (physically active: OR = 1.52 CI = 1.02-1.26). In the case of men, the same behaviour pattern is observed in those with a low O-SES as those with upward mobility, with a higher probability of co-occurring behaviours (three-to-four behaviours: OR = 2.00 CI = 1.22-3.29; OR = 3.13 CI = 1.31-7.48). The relationship of O-SES, D-SES and SM with healthy behaviours is complex and differs according to age and gender.

Presence, characteristics and equity of access to breast cancer screening programmes in 27 European countries in 2010 and 2014. Results from an international survey.

The European Union Council Recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening suggests the implementation of organised, population-based breast cancer screening programmes based on mammography every other year for women aged 50 to 69years, ensuring equal access to screening, taking into account potential needs for targeting particular socioeconomic groups. A European survey on coverage and participation, and key organisational and policy characteristics of the programmes, targeting years 2010 and 2014, was undertaken in 2014. Overall, 27 countries contributed to this survey, 26 of the 28 European Union member states (92.9%) plus Norway. In 2014, 25 countries reported an ongoing population-based programme, one country reported a pilot programme and another was planning a pilot. In eight countries, the target age range was broader than that proposed by the Council Recommendation, and in three countries the full range was not covered. Fifteen countries reported not reaching some vulnerable populations, such as immigrants, prisoners and people without health insurance, while 22 reported that participation was periodically monitored by socioeconomic variables (e.g. age and territory). Organised, population-based breast cancer screening programmes based on routine mammograms are in place in most EU member states. However, there are still differences in the way screening programmes are implemented, and participation by vulnerable populations should be encouraged.

To participate or not? Giving voice to gender and socio-economic differences in colorectal cancer screening programmes.

This paper examines the influence of gender and socio-economic status (SES) on participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Qualitative study with eight focus groups comprised of participants and non-participants in a CRC screening programme in Valencia (Spain), structural sample design and discursive analysis by gender, SES and participation. Non-participants and those with lower SES tended to have less knowledge about both the disease and the programme. Reasons for participation varied according to gender: women were motivated because they value the importance of self-care and early detection in order to prevent personal and family suffering while men were encouraged by their partners. Reasons for non-participation were also influenced by gender: women feared the results and considered the test unpleasant whereas men showed carelessness and lack of concern. In population-based programmes, people with lower SES and men are those with the most obstacles to participation due to low health literacy and traditional gender roles respectively. To increase participation in CRC screening programmes based on informed decision making and taking into account social inequalities, information should be more accessible, comprehensible and adapted to gender and SES differences and emphasise the greater vulnerability of men for CRC and the benefits of early detection.