Malin Kjellén1, My von Euler-Chelpin. 1. Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, opg B, 1014 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Earlier research has shown that participation in mammography screening tends to vary across socioeconomic levels. We assessed the difference between using the woman's own socioeconomic status (SES) and using that of her household or partner as determinant of participation in mammography screening. METHODS: Participation data from two mammography screening programs in Denmark were linked to a national SES classification system providing data for each citizen, their partner, and household. We calculated the odds ratio of non-participation across SES levels using the woman's own, the household's, and her partner's SES status, respectively. RESULTS: When using the woman's own SES, the odds ratio of non-participation showed a clear U-shape across SES levels, in both programs. When using the partner's SES the difference in non-participation across SES levels was significantly smaller (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: To what extent SES was a determinant for screening participation strongly depended on whether using the woman's own SES or that of her partner. In a public health perspective it is important to take this into account when addressing the problem of non-attendance in screening.
OBJECTIVES: Earlier research has shown that participation in mammography screening tends to vary across socioeconomic levels. We assessed the difference between using the woman's own socioeconomic status (SES) and using that of her household or partner as determinant of participation in mammography screening. METHODS: Participation data from two mammography screening programs in Denmark were linked to a national SES classification system providing data for each citizen, their partner, and household. We calculated the odds ratio of non-participation across SES levels using the woman's own, the household's, and her partner's SES status, respectively. RESULTS: When using the woman's own SES, the odds ratio of non-participation showed a clear U-shape across SES levels, in both programs. When using the partner's SES the difference in non-participation across SES levels was significantly smaller (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: To what extent SES was a determinant for screening participation strongly depended on whether using the woman's own SES or that of her partner. In a public health perspective it is important to take this into account when addressing the problem of non-attendance in screening.
Authors: Allan Jensen; Anne Helene Olsen; My von Euler-Chelpin; Sisse Helle Njor; Ilse Vejborg; Elsebeth Lynge Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Amy B Dailey; Stanislav V Kasl; Theodore R Holford; Lisa Calvocoressi; Beth A Jones Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Anne Helene Olsen; Sisse H Njor; Ilse Vejborg; Walter Schwartz; Peter Dalgaard; Maj-Britt Jensen; Ulla Brix Tange; Mogens Blichert-Toft; Fritz Rank; Henning Mouridsen; Elsebeth Lynge Journal: BMJ Date: 2005-01-13
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
Authors: Johanna Suur-Uski; Johanna Pekkala; Jenni Blomgren; Olli Pietiläinen; Ossi Rahkonen; Minna Mänty Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 3.390