Literature DB >> 18414200

Does educational level determine screening participation?

My von Euler-Chelpin1, Anne Helene Olsen, Sisse Njor, Allan Jensen, Ilse Vejborg, Walter Schwartz, Elsebeth Lynge.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that nonparticipation in organized mammography screening is due to insufficient understanding of the information in the invitation letter by relating educational level to user pattern. Data from two Danish mammography screening programmes in Copenhagen, 1991-1999, and Funen, 1993-2001 were taken for this study. The Danish Central Population Register was used to define target groups; screened participation data were provided by the health authority, and data on highest obtained education came from Statistics Denmark. Data on all breast imaging in 2000 outside organized screening were provided by radiology clinics. Included were all women eligible for at least three screens, and participation was classified into four mutually exclusive user groups. Organized mammography screening programmes in Copenhagen and Funen, Denmark were used as field of this study. Main outcome measures were age-adjusted relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of 'never use' versus 'always use' of screening by educational level, using women with secretarial/sales education as baseline. The RR of 'never use' was 1.65 (95% CI: 1.37-1.99) in Copenhagen and 1.93 (95% CI: 1.42-2.62) in Funen for academics, 1.60 (95% CI: 1.48-1.73) in Copenhagen and 1.26 (95% CI: 1.14-1.39) Funen for women with lower primary educational level. Taking other breast imaging into account, the RR was 1.60 (95% CI: 1.32-1.95) for academics in Copenhagen, and 1.90 (95% CI: 1.75-2.07) for women with lower primary education. In conclusion, our results did not support the hypothesis that lack of understanding the information in the invitation letter explains nonparticipation. 'Never use' was not inversely associated with the level of education, but showed a U-shaped association, even when use of breast imaging outside organized screening was taken into account.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18414200     DOI: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e3282f0c017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev        ISSN: 0959-8278            Impact factor:   2.497


  8 in total

1.  Development of a risk assessment tool for projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for Chinese women.

Authors:  Yuan Wang; Ying Gao; Munkhzul Battsend; Kexin Chen; Wenli Lu; Yaogang Wang
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-08-02

2.  The contribution of risk factors to the higher incidence of invasive and in situ breast cancers in women with higher levels of education in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition.

Authors:  Gwenn Menvielle; Anton E Kunst; Carla H van Gils; Petra H Peeters; Hendriek Boshuizen; Kim Overvad; Anja Olsen; Anne Tjonneland; Silke Hermann; Rudolf Kaaks; Manuela M Bergmann; Anne-Kathrin Illner; Pagona Lagiou; Dimitrios Trichopoulos; Antonia Trichopoulou; Domenico Palli; Franco Berrino; Amelia Mattiello; Rosario Tumino; Carlotta Sacerdote; Anne May; Evelyn Monninkhof; Tonje Braaten; Eiliv Lund; José Ramón Quirós; Eric J Duell; Maria-José Sánchez; Carmen Navarro; Eva Ardanaz; Signe Borgquist; Jonas Manjer; Kay Tee Khaw; Naomi E Allen; Gillian K Reeves; Véronique Chajes; Sabina Rinaldi; Nadia Slimani; Valentina Gallo; Paolo Vineis; Elio Riboli; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-11-17       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Body mass index and participation in organized mammographic screening: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Sophie Sell Hellmann; Sisse Helle Njor; Elsebeth Lynge; My von Euler-Chelpin; Anja Olsen; Anne Tjønneland; Ilse Vejborg; Zorana Jovanovic Andersen
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 4.430

4.  Educational differences in postmenopausal breast cancer--quantifying indirect effects through health behaviors, body mass index and reproductive patterns.

Authors:  Ulla Arthur Hvidtfeldt; Theis Lange; Ingelise Andersen; Finn Diderichsen; Niels Keiding; Eva Prescott; Thorkild I A Sørensen; Anne Tjønneland; Naja Hulvej Rod
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Mammographic density in birth cohorts of Danish women: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Sophie Sell Hellmann; Elsebeth Lynge; Walter Schwartz; Ilse Vejborg; Sisse Helle Njor
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2013-09-05       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Birth weight, childhood body mass index, and height in relation to mammographic density and breast cancer: a register-based cohort study.

Authors:  Zorana J Andersen; Jennifer L Baker; Kristine Bihrmann; Ilse Vejborg; Thorkild I A Sørensen; Elsebeth Lynge
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2014-01-20       Impact factor: 6.466

7.  Social inequalities and cancer: can the European deprivation index predict patients' difficulties in health care access? a pilot study.

Authors:  Guillaume Moriceau; Aurélie Bourmaud; Fabien Tinquaut; Mathieu Oriol; Jean-Philippe Jacquin; Pierre Fournel; Nicolas Magné; Franck Chauvin
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-01-05

8.  Morbidity as a Predictor for Participation in the Danish National Mammography Screening Program: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Jakob H Viuff; Ilse Vejborg; Walter Schwartz; Martin Bak; Ellen M Mikkelsen
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2020-05-25       Impact factor: 4.790

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.