intermittent attendance at breast cancer screening
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #2 of 31 articles by views in journal of istanbul veterinary sciences
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
Abstract
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
ZincirX productsfrom the team behind Journament
-
PatentYazar
Patent drafts for the EPO, USPTO and TürkPatent
From inventor notes to a DOCX draft: description, claims, abstract. The machine drafts, the attorney signs.
See how it works (opens in a new tab) -
Projenator
Have a project idea? Score and plan it with AI
AI scores your idea in five dimensions and builds a phased plan. Your first project is free, no card needed.
Start your first project (opens in a new tab)
Cookies
We use strictly necessary cookies to run the site and keep you signed in. With your permission we would also use Google Analytics to see how the site is used, and Google AdSense to show ads on journal and article pages. Both stay off unless you accept, and you can change your mind at any time. How we use cookies · KVKK notice (Türkiye)
Cookie settings
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.