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

Minamitani Masanari, Mukai Tomoya, Tatemichi Masayuki, Katano Atsuto, Fukuyoshi Jun, Nakagawa Keiichi

doi:10.1539/sangyoeisei.2022-022-b

<p>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.</p>

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

Bibliographic Information

Search this article

Abstract

Journal

References(13)*help

Related Projects

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Export

Report a problem