Literature DB >> 12057178

[Study of non-participation in the breast cancer screening program in the city of Valencia (Spain)].

M Alcaraz1, A Lluch, J Miranda, I Pereiro, M D Salas.   

Abstract

AIM: To determine the reasons for non-participation of women in a breast cancer screening program.
METHODS: We performed an observational, cross-sectional study in women who were invited to participate in the breast cancer screening program in the city of Valencia and who failed to attend. The women were interviewed in their homes through a questionnaire consisting of 25 questions grouped as follows: knowledge of the program, reasons for nonparticipation, attitudes or beliefs and characteristics of the interviewees (socioeconomic and educational variables and age). A descriptive analysis was performed. Differences in the characteristics of women were evaluated through bivariate analysis. Multivariate analysis was performed through logistic regression.
RESULTS: A total of 783 addresses were used, 411 questionnaires were completed and 361 were analyzed. The 50 questionnaires used in the pilot study were excluded because, as a consequence of this study, the questionnaire had been modified. Most of the women (93.4%) (CI: 90.3-95.7) remembered having an appointment. The main reason for not attending was being screened in another health service in 48.8% (CI: 43.6-53.9), followed by various personal reasons in 16.1% (CI: 12.3-19.9) and inability to keep the appointment at the specified time in 15.5% (CI: 11.8-19.2). Comparison of women in the middle and upper social classes with those in the lower classes revealed important differences. Middle and upper class women had a higher probability of knowing about the program and of being on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and the most frequent reason for non-attendance was attendance at another program run by another health service. In lower class women the reasons for non-attendance were fear, not believing the program to be important to health and inability to keep the appointment at the specified time. In the multivariate analysis, the variables that entered the model were HRT, social class and education. Thus, middle or upper class women undergoing HRT and with secondary or higher education had a higher probability of being screened.
CONCLUSIONS: The profile of non-participating women belongs on the one hand to those in the middle or upper social classes, undergoing HRT and being screened by other health services and, on the other, to a group of women of low social class, whose reason for non-participation is fear and timetable difficulties.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12057178     DOI: 10.1016/s0213-9111(02)71666-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gac Sanit        ISSN: 0213-9111            Impact factor:   2.139


  8 in total

1.  Mammography use for breast cancer screening in Portugal: results from the 2005/2006 National Health Survey.

Authors:  Fernanda Dourado; Helena Carreira; Nuno Lunet
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 3.367

2.  Women's patterns of participation in mammography screening in Denmark.

Authors:  My von Euler-Chelpin; Anne Helene Olsen; Sisse Njor; Ilse Vejborg; Walter Schwartz; Elsebeth Lynge
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 8.082

3.  Changes in income-related inequalities in cervical cancer screening during the Spanish economic crisis: a decomposition analysis.

Authors:  María Merino-Ventosa; Rosa M Urbanos-Garrido
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2018-12-13

4.  Prevalence of healthy lifestyles against cancer in Spanish women.

Authors:  María José Toribio; Virginia Lope; Adela Castelló; Dolores Salas; Carmen Vidal; Nieves Ascunce; Carmen Santamariña; Pilar Moreo; Carmen Pedraz-Pingarrón; Carmen Sánchez-Contador; Nuria Aragonés; Beatriz Pérez-Gómez; Marina Pollán
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-23       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Differences in breast cancer-risk factors between screen-detected and non-screen-detected cases (MCC-Spain study).

Authors:  Marta Hernández-García; Ana Molina-Barceló; Mercedes Vanaclocha-Espi; Óscar Zurriaga; Beatriz Pérez-Gómez; Nuria Aragonés; Pilar Amiano; Jone M Altzibar; Gemma Castaño-Vinyals; María Sala; María Ederra; Vicente Martín; Inés Gómez-Acebo; Carmen Vidal; Adonina Tardón; Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Marina Pollán; Manolis Kogevinas; Dolores Salas
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 2.506

6.  A randomised trial of weekend and evening breast screening appointments.

Authors:  J Offman; M Wilson; M Lamont; H Birke; E Kutt; S Marriage; Y Loughrey; S Hudson; A Hartley; J Smith; B Eckersley; F Dungey; D Parmar; J Patnick; S W Duffy
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-07-18       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Determinants of non attendance to mammography program in a region with high voluntary health insurance coverage.

Authors:  Magdalena Esteva; Joana Ripoll; Alfonso Leiva; Carmen Sánchez-Contador; Francisca Collado
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2008-11-13       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  Mammography screening: views from women and primary care physicians in Crete.

Authors:  Maria Trigoni; Frances Griffiths; Dimitris Tsiftsis; Eugenios Koumantakis; Eileen Green; Christos Lionis
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2008-11-07       Impact factor: 2.809

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.