The low uptake of breast screening in cities is a major public health issue and may be due to organisational factors: A Census-based record linkage study

Kinnear, Heather; Rosato, Michael; Mairs, Adrian; Hall, Christopher L.; O’Reilly, Dermot

doi:10.1016/j.breast.2011.04.009

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent UK study has found that cancer screening uptake is generally lower in the urban setting than in rural areas, 10 however rural residency was proportionally higher among PNAs in this study compared to respective controls, similar to the findings in other comparative studies in the US and Canada. 11,12 Residing in a rural area was a deterrent to attendance within this cohort even though mobile units are located at sites all over the country; First PNAs cited the trip would be too difficult as a reason for non-attendance and this was reiterated by Subsequent PNAs as a reason for non attendance, after attending a first time.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Intermittent Attendance at Breast Cancer Screening

Fleming¹,

O’Neill²,

Owens

et al. 2013

Journal of Public Health Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo determine why women skip rounds and factors influencing return of previous non attenders (PNAs) to breast screening.Design and methodsRetrospective, quantitative, structured questionnaire posted to 2500 women. First PNAs did not attend their first screening appointment in 2007/2008 but then attended in 2010; First Controls first attended in 2010 without missed previous appointments. Women who attended screening in 2006 or earlier then skipped a round but returned in 2010 were Subsequent PNAs; Subsequent Controls attended all appointments.ResultsMore First Controls than First PNAs had family history of cancer (72.7% vs 63.2%; P=0.003); breast cancer (31.3% vs 24.8%; P=0.04). More PNAs lived rurally; more First PNAs had 3rd level education (33.2% vs 23.6%; P=0.002) and fewer had private insurance than First Controls (57.7% vs 64.8%; P=0.04). Excellent/good health was reported in First PNAs and First Controls (82.9% vs 83.2%), but fewer Subsequent PNAs than Subsequent Controls (72.7% vs 84.9%; P=0.000). Common considerations at time of missed appointment were had mammogram elsewhere (33% First PNA) and postponed to next round (16% First PNA, 18.8% Subsequent PNA). Considerations when returning to screening were similar for First PNAs and Subsequent PNAs: I am older (35.4%, 29.6%), I made sure I remembered (29%, 23.6%), could reschedule (17.6%, 20.6%), illness of more concern (16.5%, 19%). More First PNAs stated my family/friends advised (22.3% vs 15.2%) or my GP (12.6% vs 4.6%) advised me to attend, heard good things about BreastCheck (28.8% vs 13.6%).ConclusionsIntermittent attenders do not fit socio-demographic patterns of non-attenders; GP recommendation and word of mouth were important in women’s return to screening. Fear and anxiety seem to act as a screening facilitator rather than an inhibitor.Significance for public healthAll breast cancer screening programmes strive to achieve and maintain a high level of attendance, as this is essential to reduce breast cancer mortality, together with cancer detection. While non-attendance has been widely studied, little is known about intermittent attenders. It is unclear why a woman chooses not to attend her breast screening appointment but then decides to respond positively to screening invitation two or more years later. The literature identifies many reasons why some women choose not to attend; but this study distinguishes those who then change their mind and return to screening. This study explores a sub-set of non-attenders which have, to date, been largely ignored, or grouped with people who never attend. This study will inform those struggling with non-attendance in their population based health programmes and will help to tackle the problem of non-attendance, which has adverse affects both economically and epidemiologically.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Intermittent Attendance at Breast Cancer Screening

Fleming¹,

O’Neill²,

Owens

et al. 2013

Journal of Public Health Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A lower uptake of OrgMS among the youngest (50-54 years) and the oldest (70-74 years) women, as well as in women living in rural or in deprived areas has been reported [17][18][19], In socioeconomically deprived areas for example, people have other life priorities like seeking happiness and coping with everyday life rather than disease prevention. Access to healthcare facilities and general practitioners has also been reported as a factor that influenced participation in breast screening examinations [20][21][22]. In this study, we investigated factors affecting participation in OppMS only or in both OrgMS and OppMS when the two screening modes coexist in women invited to attend an OrgMS session in 2010 and 2011 in thirteen French geographical areas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Breast cancer screening programmes: Challenging the coexistence with opportunistic mammography

Ouédraogo¹,

Dabakuyo‐Yonli²,

Amiel³

et al. 2014

Patient Education and Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Pornet et al (7) described that even with organized breast cancer screening giving screening free of charge for target women, ecological socioeconomic factors had a more significant impact on participation than healthcare supply. Kinnear et al (8) suggested that changes that would result in increasing the uptake in cities may help reduce socio-economic inequalities in cancer screening.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demographic Factors Influencing Consensus Opinion on the Recall for Women Screened by Mobile Mammography Unit in Taiwan

Lee

Hsueh-Hua

2013

Iran J Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe incidence of breast cancer has had a four-fold increase from 1980 to 2005 in Taiwan. Limited data have been available on mobile breast screening in the Taiwanese population since 2009.ObjectivesThis study aims at investigating the factors influencing consensus opinion on the recall for mobile breast screening in Taiwan.Patients and MethodsThe factors were categorized by individual health background, socioeconomic status and knowledge about breast screening. There were 502 questionnaires collected from Taiwanese women examined on mobile mammography screening vehicle. Data were then analyzed by SPSS 12 via analysis of variance (ANOVA), F-test, t-test or chi-square test.ResultsStrong participation was associated with a younger age, higher educational level, higher incomes, previous history of cancer, previous family history of cancer, one or two prior mammographies, more correct recognitions of mammography, recall rate, and breast cancer risk. If the false-positive result occurred, 83.9%, 81.9% and 77.3% of the women agreed or strongly agreed to participate in noninvasive and invasive testing and screening mammography, respectively.ConclusionThe policy makers should notify the importance of demographic factors affecting further examination for early detection of breast cancer in Taiwan.

show abstract

The low uptake of breast screening in cities is a major public health issue and may be due to organisational factors: A Census-based record linkage study

Cited by 17 publications

References 13 publications

Intermittent Attendance at Breast Cancer Screening

Intermittent Attendance at Breast Cancer Screening

Breast cancer screening programmes: Challenging the coexistence with opportunistic mammography

Demographic Factors Influencing Consensus Opinion on the Recall for Women Screened by Mobile Mammography Unit in Taiwan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About