Ravi Maheswaran1, Tim Pearson, Hannah Jordan, David Black. 1. Public Health GIS Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK. r.maheswaran@sheffield.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: This study examined the association between socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, urban-rural status, location and type of screening unit, and breast screening uptake. Screening was provided at 13 locations--1 fixed and 12 mobile (3 at non-health locations). METHODS: The study examined data from 1998 to 2001 for 34 868 women aged 50-64 years, calculated road travel distance, used 1991 enumeration district level Townsend socioeconomic deprivation scores, and a ward level urban-rural classification. RESULTS: Odds of attendance for screening decreased with increasing socioeconomic deprivation, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.64 (95%CI 0.59 to 0.70) in the most deprived relative to the least deprived category. 87% of women lived within 8 km of their screening location. The odds ratio for a 10 km increase in distance was 0.87 (95%CI 0.79 to 0.95). The odds ratios were 1.18 (95%CI 1.08 to 1.28) for screening at a non-health relative to a health location, 1.00 (95%CI 0.94 to 1.07) for the fixed site relative to the mobile unit and 1.00 (95%CI 0.91 to 1.09) for mainly rural relative to mainly urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic inequality in breast screening uptake seems to persist in an established service. There was a small decrease with increasing distance, no difference between fixed and mobile units, and no difference between urban and rural areas but uptake seemed to be higher at non-health sites. Further work is needed to identify effective methods of decreasing socioeconomic inequalities in uptake and to confirm if non-health locations are associated with higher screening uptake.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: This study examined the association between socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, urban-rural status, location and type of screening unit, and breast screening uptake. Screening was provided at 13 locations--1 fixed and 12 mobile (3 at non-health locations). METHODS: The study examined data from 1998 to 2001 for 34 868 women aged 50-64 years, calculated road travel distance, used 1991 enumeration district level Townsend socioeconomic deprivation scores, and a ward level urban-rural classification. RESULTS: Odds of attendance for screening decreased with increasing socioeconomic deprivation, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.64 (95%CI 0.59 to 0.70) in the most deprived relative to the least deprived category. 87% of women lived within 8 km of their screening location. The odds ratio for a 10 km increase in distance was 0.87 (95%CI 0.79 to 0.95). The odds ratios were 1.18 (95%CI 1.08 to 1.28) for screening at a non-health relative to a health location, 1.00 (95%CI 0.94 to 1.07) for the fixed site relative to the mobile unit and 1.00 (95%CI 0.91 to 1.09) for mainly rural relative to mainly urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic inequality in breast screening uptake seems to persist in an established service. There was a small decrease with increasing distance, no difference between fixed and mobile units, and no difference between urban and rural areas but uptake seemed to be higher at non-health sites. Further work is needed to identify effective methods of decreasing socioeconomic inequalities in uptake and to confirm if non-health locations are associated with higher screening uptake.
Authors: D C Haiart; L McKenzie; J Henderson; W Pollock; D V McQueen; M M Roberts; A P Forrest Journal: Public Health Date: 1990-07 Impact factor: 2.427
Authors: P T Rajasekhar; G M Clifford; T J W Lee; M D Rutter; G Waddup; M Ritchie; D Nylander; J Painter; J Singh; I Ward; N Dempsey; J Bowes; G Handley; J Henry; C J Rees Journal: Frontline Gastroenterol Date: 2011-10-28
Authors: Allison E Anderson; Kevin A Henry; N Jewel Samadder; Ray M Merrill; Anita Y Kinney Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Elizabeth Tarlov; Shannon N Zenk; Richard T Campbell; Richard B Warnecke; Richard Block Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2008-10-30 Impact factor: 3.671