Women's patterns of participation in mammography screening in Denmark

被引:24
作者
von Euler-Chelpin, M
Olsen, AH
Njor, S
Vejborg, I
Schwartz, W
Lynge, E
机构
[1] Univ Copenhagen, Inst Publ Hlth, DK-1014 Copenhagen K, Denmark
[2] Univ Copenhagen Hosp, Ctr Diagnost Imaging, DK-2100 Copenhagen O, Denmark
[3] Odense Univ Hosp, DK-5000 Odense, Denmark
关键词
attendance; breast cancer; mammography; protective effect; screening;
D O I
10.1007/s10654-006-0002-1
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
The objective of the study is to analyse individual women's participation patterns in mammography screening in Denmark. The study is set in the capital of Copenhagen and the county of Fyn representing around 95,000 women aged 50-69. The Central Population Register (CPR) was used to define the total target group, and supply information on migrations and deaths. Invitation and participation data came from the mammography screening programmes in Copenhagen (1991-1999) and Fyn (1993-2001), containing personal identification number, data on invitation date, participation and examination date for each screening round. In Copenhagen the coverage went from 70.5% in the first round to 63.1% in the fourth round, and the equivalent data for Fyn is 84.6% in the first round and 82.8% in the fourth round. Of the women eligible for at least three invitation rounds, 52.6% in Copenhagen and 76.4% in Fyn were faithful users, i.e. had participated in all screenings they were invited to. The conclusion is that the programme participation rates tend to overestimate the protection of the individual women covered by the programme. Behind the urban-rural gradient in programme participation is an even greater gradient in programme protection.
引用
收藏
页码:203 / 209
页数:7
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]  
Advisory Comm Canc Prevention, 2000, EUR J CANCER, V36, P1473
[2]  
Alcaraz M., 2002, Gac Sanit, V16, P230
[3]   Programme sensitivity and effectiveness of mammography service screening in Helsinki, Finland [J].
Anttila, A ;
Koskela, J ;
Hakama, M .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2002, 9 (04) :153-158
[4]   DIAGNOSTIC OUTCOME OF REPEATED MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING [J].
ARNESSON, LG ;
VITAK, B ;
MANSON, JC ;
FAGERBERG, G ;
SMEDS, S .
WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1995, 19 (03) :372-378
[5]  
Ascunce N, 1994, Eur J Cancer Prev, V3 Suppl 1, P41, DOI 10.1097/00008469-199401001-00007
[6]   Factors related to non-participation in a population-based breast cancer screening programme [J].
Baré, ML ;
Montes, J ;
Florensa, R ;
Sentís, M ;
Donos, L .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION, 2003, 12 (06) :487-494
[7]   Decreasing women's anxieties after abnormal mammograms: A controlled trial [J].
Barton, MB ;
Morley, DS ;
Moore, S ;
Allen, JD ;
Kleinman, KP ;
Emmons, KM ;
Fletcher, SW .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2004, 96 (07) :529-538
[8]   Factors associated with interval adherence to mammography screening in a population-based sample of New Hampshire women [J].
Carney, PA ;
Harwood, BG ;
Weiss, JE ;
Eliassen, MS ;
Goodrich, ME .
CANCER, 2002, 95 (02) :219-227
[9]  
CEDERHOLM S, 1997, MAMMOGRAPHY BUS BOHU
[10]   A breast cancer fear scale: Psychometric development [J].
Champion, VL ;
Skinner, CS ;
Menon, U ;
Rawl, S ;
Giesler, RB ;
Monahan, P ;
Daggy, J .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, 2004, 9 (06) :753-762