intermittent attendance at breast cancer screening

Clicks: 439
ID: 150901
2013
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality Improving Quality
0.0 /100
Combines engagement data with AI-assessed academic quality
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Abstract
Background. To determine why women skip rounds and factors influencing return of previous non attenders (PNAs) to breast screening.
Design and methods. Retrospective, 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.
Results. More 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%).
Conclusions. Intermittent 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.
Reference Key
fleming2013journalintermittent Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Padraic Fleming;Sinead O'Neill;Miriam Owens;Therese Mooney;Patricia Fitzpatrick
Journal journal of istanbul veterinary sciences
Year 2013
DOI
10.4081/jphr.2013.e14
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.