Literature DB >> 16476749

Socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, location of service, and uptake of breast cancer screening in North Derbyshire, UK.

Ravi Maheswaran1, Tim Pearson, Hannah Jordan, David Black.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16476749      PMCID: PMC2465550          DOI: 10.1136/jech.200X.038398

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  13 in total

1.  Effect of distance and social disadvantage on the response to invitations to attend mammography screening.

Authors:  J C Hyndman; C D Holman; V P Dawes
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.136

Review 2.  Interventions to increase breast screening uptake: do they make any difference?

Authors:  J P Sin; A S St Leger
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.136

3.  Profile of women not attending in the Swiss Mammography Screening Pilot Programme.

Authors:  J-L Bulliard; J-P de Landtsheer; F Levi
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.380

4.  Mobile breast screening: factors affecting uptake, efforts to increase response and acceptability.

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

5.  Comparison of prognostic and socio-economic factors in screen-detected and symptomatic cases of breast cancer.

Authors:  L Garvican; P Littlejohns
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 2.427

6.  Relocation of a static breast screening unit: a study of factors affecting attendance.

Authors:  A J Maxwell
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.136

7.  The effect of access factors on breast screening attendance on two Scottish islands.

Authors:  C R Stark; L Reay; C Shiroyama
Journal:  Health Bull (Edinb)       Date:  1997-09

8.  Predicting attendance for breast screening using routinely collected data.

Authors:  Marjon van der Pol; John Cairns
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2003-11

9.  Uptake of screening for breast cancer in south Lancashire.

Authors:  A Gatrell; S Garnett; J Rigby; A Maddocks; M Kirwan
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.427

10.  Do general practitioners influence the uptake of breast cancer screening?

Authors:  F A Majeed; D G Cook; R Given-Wilson; P Vecchi; J Poloniecki
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.136

View more
  48 in total

1.  Hypovitaminosis D, neighborhood poverty, and progression of chronic kidney disease in disadvantaged populations.

Authors:  R Mehrotra; K Norris
Journal:  Clin Nephrol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.975

2.  Socioeconomic status as determinant for participation in mammography screening: assessing the difference between using women's own versus their partner's.

Authors:  Malin Kjellén; My von Euler-Chelpin
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 3.380

3.  Bowel cancer screening is safe, detects earlier stage cancer and adenomas in 50% of cases: experience of the prevalent round of screening from two first wave centres in the North East of England.

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

4.  False-positive results in the randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 ("Age" trial).

Authors:  Louise E Johns; Sue M Moss
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-09-13       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Rural vs urban residence affects risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening.

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

6.  Risk of breast cancer among daughters of mothers with diabetes: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Olof Stephansson; Fredrik Granath; Anders Ekbom; Karin B Michels
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2010-02-25       Impact factor: 6.466

7.  Social deprivation and exposure to health promotion. A study of the distribution of health promotion resources to schools in England.

Authors:  Corina M Chivu; Daniel D Reidpath
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-08-10       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  The geography of genetics: an analysis of referral patterns to a cancer genetics service.

Authors:  Kevin McDonald; Rachel Iredale; Gary Higgs
Journal:  Genomic Med       Date:  2008-01-23

9.  Characteristics of mammography facility locations and stage of breast cancer at diagnosis in Chicago.

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

10.  A randomised controlled trial of an intervention to promote early presentation of breast cancer in older women: effect on breast cancer awareness.

Authors:  L Linsell; L J L Forbes; M Kapari; C Burgess; L Omar; L Tucker; A J Ramirez
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-12-03       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.