Breast and cervical cancer screening in Great Britain: Dynamic interrelated processes

Labeit, Alexander; Peinemann, Frank

doi:10.1186/s13561-015-0065-3

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, it has been demonstrated that the decision to participate in one form of cancer screening or periodic health assessment can positively influence the decision to participate in other forms of cancer screening, including breast and cervical ( 38 , 39 ) and the completion of colorectal, prostate (PSA) and mammography screening ( 40 ). A decision made potentially easier if screening services were available to the person on the same day and at the same location.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p < 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p < 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p < 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p < 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the spillover effect of a cholesterol level check on blood pressure check and vice versa. A spillover effect has also been found for the breast and cervical cancer screening examination in Great Britain 6 . This spillover effect could be explained by the fact that an individual is more accessible for preventive information if one of the cardiovascular screening examination has been done in the past or the individual is advised also to do the other type of cardiovascular screening examination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“… 59 and Devicienti et al . 50 ) and this model has been used to analyse the simultaneous uptake of the breast and cervical cancer screening examination 6 and also in further panel data applications 60 – 62 . The Wooldridge estimator specifies a relationship between the unobserved time-invariant individual effect and the observed characteristics and has the assumption of initial conditions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Blood pressure check and cholesterol level check are two cardiovascular screening examinations which are recommended according to the relevant medical guidelines 1 , 2 and are often done, because of the high prevalence of cardiovascular diseases in the UK 3 , 4 . There is some empirical evidence that a positive association between different screening examinations exist 5 , 6 . However, there is no empirical analysis with longitudinal data which has investigated the uptake of two different cardiovascular screening examinations such as the blood pressure check and cholesterol level check over a long time period.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Blood pressure and cholesterol level checks as dynamic interrelated screening examinations

Labeit

Kedir

Peinemann

2017

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analysed the determinants of screening uptake for blood pressure and cholesterol level checks. Furthermore, it investigated the presence of possible spillover effects from one type of cardiovascular screening to another type of cardiovascular screening. A dynamic random effects bivariate panel probit model with initial conditions (Wooldridge-type estimator) was adopted for the estimation. The outcome variables were the participation in blood pressure and cholesterol level checks by individuals in a given year. The balanced panel sample of 21,138 observations was constructed from 1,626 individuals from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) between 1996 and 2008. The analysis showed the significance of past screening behaviour for both cardiovascular screening examinations. For both cardiovascular screening examinations state dependence exist. The study also shows a significant spillover effect of the cholesterol level check on the blood pressure check and vice versa. Also a poorer health status led to a higher uptake for both types of screening examinations. Changes in recommendations have to consider the fact that taking part in one type of cardiovascular screening examination can influence the decision to take part in the other type of cardiovascular screening examination.

show abstract

“…Given the low prevalence of kidney cancer, such a ‘bolt on’ screening programme may well be the most cost-effective as well as the most acceptable. It may also increase uptake of existing programmes [ 25 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public attitudes towards screening for kidney cancer: an online survey

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Kidney cancer is often asymptomatic, leading to proposals for a screening programme. The views of the public towards introducing a new screening programme for kidney cancer are unknown. The aim of this study was to explore attitudes towards kidney cancer screening and factors influencing intention to attend a future screening programme. Methods We conducted an online population-based survey of 1021 adults aged 45–77 years. The main outcome measure was intention to attend four possible screening tests (urine, blood, ultrasound scan, low-dose CT) as well as extended low-dose CT scans within lung cancer screening programmes. We used multivariable regression to examine the association between intention and each screening test. Results Most participants stated that they would be ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ to undergo each of the screening tests [urine test: n = 961 (94.1%); blood test: n = 922 (90.3%); ultrasound: n = 914 (89.5%); low-dose CT: n = 804 (78.8%); lung CT: n = 962 (95.2%)]. Greater intention to attend was associated with higher general cancer worry and less perceived burden/inconvenience about the screening tests. Less worry about the screening test was also associated with higher intention to attend, but only in those with low general cancer worry (cancer worry scale ≤ 5). Compared with intention to take up screening with a urine test, participants were half as likely to report that they intended to undergo blood [OR 0.56 (0.43–0.73)] or ultrasound [OR 0.50 (0.38–0.67)] testing, and half as likely again to report that they intended to take part in a screening programme featuring a low dose CT scan for kidney cancer screening alone [OR 0.19 (0.14–0.27)]. Conclusion Participants in this study expressed high levels of intention to accept an invitation to screening for kidney cancer, both within a kidney cancer specific screening programme and in conjunction with lung cancer screening. The choice of screening test is likely to influence uptake. Together these findings support on-going research into kidney cancer screening tests and the potential for combining kidney cancer screening with existing or new screening programmes.

show abstract

Breast and cervical cancer screening in Great Britain: Dynamic interrelated processes

Cited by 16 publications

References 53 publications

Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer

Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer

Blood pressure and cholesterol level checks as dynamic interrelated screening examinations

Public attitudes towards screening for kidney cancer: an online survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About