Immigrants from certain low- and middle-income countries are more prone to cancers attributed to viral infections in early life. Cervical cancer is caused by human papillomavirus but is highly preventable by regular screening. We assessed participation among immigrants in a population-based cervical screening programme and identified factors that predicted non-adherence within different immigrant groups. We used data from several nationwide registries. The study population consisted of 208 626 (15%) immigrants and 1 157 223 (85%) native Norwegians. Non-adherence was defined as no eligible screening test in 2008–12. We estimated prevalence ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for factors associated with non-adherence by modified Poisson regression. In total, 52% of immigrants were not screened. All immigrants showed 1.72 times higher non-adherence rates (95% CI 1.71–1.73) compared with native Norwegian women when adjusted for age and parity. The proportion of non-adherent immigrants varied substantially by region of origin and country of origin. Being unemployed or not in the workforce, being unmarried, having low income and having a male general practitioner was associated with non-adherence regardless of region of origin. Living <10 years in Norway was an evident determinant of non-adherence among most but not all immigrant groups. An increasing proportion of immigrants and low screening participation among them pose new public health challenges in Europe. Immigrants are diverse in terms of their sociodemographic attributes and screening participation. Tailored information and service delivery may be necessary to increase cancer screening among immigrants.

High coverage is essential for an effective screening programme. Here we present screening barriers and facilitators among 1.3 million women aged 25-69years eligible for screening within the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Program (NCCSP). We defined non-adherence as no screening test in 2008-2012. We divided adherent women into those screened spontaneously, and those who had a smear after receiving a reminder from the NCCSP. Explanatory variables were extracted from several nationwide registers, and modelled by modified Poisson regression. In total, 34% of women were non-adherent. 31% of native Norwegians were non-adherent, compared to 50% of immigrants. Immigrant status was a strong predictor of non-adherence, but the vast majority of non-adherent women were still native Norwegians. Higher non-adherence rates were associated with having a male general practitioner (GP), a foreign GP, a young GP, and distance to the screening site. Being unmarried, having no children, having lower socioeconomic position and region of residence predicted non-adherence and, to a smaller extent, reminded adherence to screening. In contrast, previous experience with cervical abnormalities substantially increased adherence to screening. The population-based screening programme promotes equity by recruiting women who are less likely to participate spontaneously. However, socioeconomic disparities were evident in a country with a nationwide programme and a policy of equal access to health care. Initiatives aimed at removing practical and financial barriers to equitable screening delivery and at reducing the effect of sociodemographic attributes on screening participation are needed.

Comparative data on different self-collection methods is limited. To assess the impact of hrHPV testing of two self-collection devices for detection of cervical carcinoma and high-grade lesions. Three hundred ten patients collected two cervicovaginal specimens using a brush (Evalyn®Brush) and a swab (FLOQSwabs™), and filled a questionnaire at home. Then, a physician at the clinic took a cervical specimen into PreservCyt® buffer for hrHPV testing and cytology. All specimens were tested using Anyplex™ II HPV28, Cobas® 4800 HPV Test and Xpert®HPV. Performance comparison included 45 cervical carcinomas and 187 patients with premalignant lesions. Compared to the physician-specimen, hrHPV testing of Evalyn®Brush showed non-inferior sensitivity for CIN3+ (relative sensitivity of Anyplex™ 0.99; Cobas® 0.96; Xpert®HPV 0.97) while hrHPV testing of FLOQSwabs™ showed inferior sensitivity (relative sensitivity of Anyplex™ 0.91; Cobas® 0.92; Xpert®HPV 0.93). Similar results were observed for invasive carcinomas albeit that FLOQSwabs™ was statistically non-inferior to the physician-specimen. Self-collection by either Evalyn®Brush or FLOQSwabs™ was more sensitive for CIN3+ than LSIL or worse cytology. Significant decrease in sensitivity for CIN3+ were observed for FLOQSwabs™ when specimens were preprocessed for hrHPV testing after 28 days. Both devices were well accepted, but patients considered Evalyn®Brush easier and more comfortable than FLOQSwabs™. Self-collection is comparable to current screening practice for detecting cervical carcinoma and CIN3+ but device and specimen processing effects exist. Only validated procedure including collection device, hrHPV assay and specimen preparation should be used.

To compare the prevalence and trends of antipsychotic drug use during pregnancy between countries across four continents. Individually linked health data in Denmark (2000-2012), Finland (2005-2014), Iceland (2004-2017), Norway (2005-2015), Sweden (2006-2015), Germany (2006-2015), Australia (New South Wales, 2004-2012), Hong Kong (2001-2015), UK (2006-2016), and the US (Medicaid, 2000-2013, and IBM MarketScan, 2012-2015) were used. Using a uniformed approach, we estimated the prevalence of antipsychotic use as the proportion of pregnancies where a woman filled at least one antipsychotic prescription within three months before pregnancy until birth. For the Nordic countries, data were meta-analyzed to investigate maternal characteristics associated with the use of antipsychotics. We included 8,394,343 pregnancies. Typical antipsychotic use was highest in the UK (4.4%) whereas atypical antipsychotic use was highest in the US Medicaid (1.5%). Atypical antipsychotic use increased over time in most populations, reaching 2% in Australia (2012) and US Medicaid (2013). In most countries, prochlorperazine was the most commonly used typical antipsychotic and quetiapine the most commonly used atypical antipsychotic. Use of antipsychotics decreased across the trimesters of pregnancy in all populations except Finland. Antipsychotic use was elevated among smokers and those with parity ≥4 in the Nordic countries. Antipsychotic use during pregnancy varied considerably between populations, partly explained by varying use of the typical antipsychotic prochlorperazine, which is often used for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. Increasing usage of atypical antipsychotics among pregnant women reflects the pattern that was previously reported for the general population.

Summary: Background: Most anti‐tumour necrosis factor (anti‐TNF) agents are transferred across the placenta and may increase paediatric susceptibility to infections.Aims: To assess the risk of paediatric infections after maternal anti‐TNF treatment.Methods: Population‐based cohort study in Denmark, Finland and Sweden 2006‐2013 in which 1027 children born to women with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis or inflammatory bowel disease, treated with anti‐TNF, and 9346 children to women with non‐biologic systemic treatment, were compared to 1 617 886 children of the general population. Children were followed for 3 years.Results: Adjusted by maternal age, parity, smoking, body mass index, country and calendar year, the incidence rate ratios with 95% confidence interval (CI) for hospital admissions for infection in the first year were 1.43 (1.23‐1.67) for anti‐TNF and 1.14 (1.07‐1.21) for non‐biologic systemic treatment, and 1.29 (1.11‐1.50) and 1.09 (1.02‐1.15), respectively, when additionally adjusting for adverse birth outcomes. There was a slight increase in antibiotic prescriptions in the second year for anti‐TNF, 1.19 (1.11‐1.29), and for non‐biologic systemic treatment, 1.10 (1.07‐1.13). There was no difference among anti‐TNF agents, treatment in the third trimester, or between mono/combination therapy with non‐biologic systemic treatment.Conclusions: Both anti‐TNF and non‐biologic systemic treatment were associated with an increased risk of paediatric infections. However, reassuringly, the increased risks were present regardless of treatment in the third trimester, or with combination treatment, and were not persistent during the first 3 years of life. Our findings may indicate a true risk, but could also be due to unadjusted confounding by disease severity and healthcare‐seeking behaviour. This may in turn shift the risk‐benefit equation towards continuation of treatment even in the third trimester.

We analysed patterns in the incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN2, CIN3) and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) by age and histology in 1992–2016 in Norway and described changes in screening tests. Incident cases of CIN2, CIN3, AIS and cervical cancer were identified in the Cancer Registry of Norway, as were all women with at least one screening test. The annual percentage change statistic was used to assess point estimates and changes in age‐specific and age‐standardised incidence rates (IR). Women aged 25–29 years had the highest incidence of cervical precancerous lesions (CIN2: 192.9/10, CIN3: 737.2/10, AIS: 32.5/10⁵ in 2016). The IR of CIN2 increased for all screening ages (25–69 years) from 3.6% to 6.7% per year. CIN3 incidence increased by 1.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6–2.6) annually. A steep increase in AIS incidence was observed in all age groups (7.1% per year, 95% CI 5.3–8.8). Changes in screening tests and the histological verification of cervical precancerous lesions alone cannot explain the steady increase in incidence we observed over the 25‐year study period, and increased exposure to human papillomavirus (HPV) likely plays a role. Age‐appropriate treatment of screening‐detected cervical precancerous lesions is needed for effective cervical cancer control while avoiding overtreatment and related health risks. In order to perform an appropriate harm‐benefit evaluation of cervical cancer control efforts, detailed information on screening technology and background risks, including HPV vaccination status, is needed to create optimal public health policy.