Literature DB >> 12846372

The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program: re-attendance related to the women's experiences, intentions and previous screening result.

Solveig S H Hofvind1, Hege Wang, Steinar Thoresen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To survey factors of importance for attendance in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP).
METHODS: Simple forced choice questionnaires were sent to 1221 women, in four categories: not attended, screened negative, false positive, and breast cancer cases. The response rate was 80.7%.
RESULTS: Women who were invited to the NBCSP reported positive opinions about being invited and the provided information. This response was independent of attendance and screening result. An experience of pain during screening examination was reported in the same proportion among women who were screened negative and false positive (p = 0.27). Unsatisfactory care was reported in a significantly lower rate among women who were screened negative, compared to the false positive (p = 0.02) and breast cancer cases (p < 0.01). Re-attendance was significantly higher among women who were screened negative (91.8%), compared to the false positive (83.9%, p < 0.01). Experienced pain seemed to influence re-attendance among the false positive, while care seemed to influence re-attendance among women who were screened negative. Intention to re-attend was significantly associated with the rate of re-attendance (p < 0.01) and it was the only significant predictor for re-attendance (OR = 5.4, 95% CI: 1.8-16.7) in a multiple logistic regression analysis with intention, age, experienced pain, experienced care and waiting time included in the model. Age did not have much influence on results.
CONCLUSION: Women, who were invited to the NBCSP, reported positive opinions about the program. Re-attendance was related to previous screening results, partly by, experienced pain and care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12846372     DOI: 10.1023/a:1023918610664

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Causes Control        ISSN: 0957-5243            Impact factor:   2.506


  9 in total

1.  Retention of screened women in the Manitoba Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  Kathleen M Decker
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2008 May-Jun

2.  Compression forces used in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Gunvor G Waade; Nataliia Moshina; Sofie Sebuødegård; Peter Hogg; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram on Subsequent Screening Behavior and Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Firas M Dabbous; Therese A Dolecek; Michael L Berbaum; Sarah M Friedewald; Wm Thomas Summerfelt; Kent Hoskins; Garth H Rauscher
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Influence of false-positive mammography results on subsequent screening: do physician recommendations buffer negative effects?

Authors:  Jessica T DeFrank; Barbara K Rimer; J Michael Bowling; Jo Anne Earp; Erica S Breslau; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  Predictors of repeat participation in the NHS bowel cancer screening programme.

Authors:  S H Lo; S Halloran; J Snowball; H Seaman; J Wardle; C von Wagner
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Risk of breast cancer after false-positive results in mammographic screening.

Authors:  Marta Román; Xavier Castells; Solveig Hofvind; My von Euler-Chelpin
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 4.452

7.  Subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program after a false-positive result in the Local Health Authority of Bologna (Italy).

Authors:  Lorena Squillace; Lorenzo Pizzi; Flavia Rallo; Carmen Bazzani; Gianni Saguatti; Francesca Mezzetti
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Time-trend of melanoma screening practice by primary care physicians: a meta-regression analysis.

Authors:  Antonis Valachis; Davide Mauri; Vassiliki Karampoiki; Nikolaos P Polyzos; Ivan Cortinovis; Georgios Koukourakis; Georgios Zacharias; Apostolos Xilomenos; Maria Tsappi; Giovanni Casazza
Journal:  Ups J Med Sci       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.384

9.  Food items contributing most to variation in antioxidant intake; a cross-sectional study among Norwegian women.

Authors:  Samera Azeem Qureshi; Annette Christin Lund; Marit Bragelien Veierød; Monica Hauger Carlsen; Rune Blomhoff; Lene Frost Andersen; Giske Ursin
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2014-01-16       Impact factor: 3.295

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.