Migration has, over the years, attracted infinitely more attention than non-migration or staying. In this paper, the focus is set on those individuals who have demonstrated lifelong sedentary behaviour. The aim of the study is to scrutinise the ways in which people who have lived their entire life in the same place make sense of their sedentary, or immobile, lifestyle. The study builds upon semi-structured interviews, conducted in 2011-2012, with persons aged 60 years and older who were living in an urban area in northern Sweden. Initially, the different definitions of staying are highlighted by the informants, and the flexibility of the concept is addressed. The findings indicate that even though reasons for staying might be harder to articulate than reasons for migration, the explanations given are still complex and multi-layered. The findings also suggest that the decision to stay is not a choice made once and then never renegotiated but rather a decision made over and over again. Furthermore, the significance of intertwined lives, both with living relatives and with preceding and following generations, is analysed. Finally, the results from the study challenge earlier pictures of stayers -where they were portrayed as stigmatised -and highlight the need to consider staying, as well as moving, as a conscious choice in order that we may gain a better understanding of the dynamics of staying.

BACKGROUND: Invitation to mammography screening of women aged 40 to 49 years is a matter of debate in many countries and a cost-effective alternative in countries without screening among women aged 40 to 49 years could be inviting those at higher risk. The relative effectiveness of mammography screening was estimated for subgroups based on the breast cancer risk factors parity, age at time of birth of first child, and socioeconomic status (SES). METHODS: The SCReening of Young Women (SCRY) database consists of all women aged 40 to 49 years in Sweden between 1986 and 2005 and was split into a study and control group. The study group consisted of women residing in areas in which women aged 40 to 49 years were invited to screening and the control group of women in areas in which women aged 40 to 49 years were not invited to screening. Rate ratio (RR) estimates were calculated for 2 exposures: invitation and attendance. RESULTS: There were striking similarities noted in the RR pattern for women invited to and attending screening and no statistically significant difference or trend in the RR was noted by risk group. The RR estimates increased by increasing parity for parity of 0 to 2 and ranged from 0.55 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.38-0.79) to 0.79 (95% CI, 0.65-0.95) for attending women. The RR for women with high SES was lower than that for women with low SES (RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.79 [95% CI,], respectively). For women aged 20 to 24 years at the time of the birth of their first child, the RR was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.91) and estimates for other ages were similar. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference noted in the relative effectiveness of mammography screening by parity, age at the time of birth of the first child, or SES. Cancer 2015;121:251-8.

No abstract