Literature DB >> 22233570

Performance indicators for participation in organized mammography screening.

Katja Kemp Jacobsen1, My von Euler-Chelpin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A population's acceptance of a screening programme is reflected by its participation. Participation can be measured by cross-section, in an individual screening round, or by cumulative examination rate, which covers participation in numerous rounds at a pre-specified frequency. To establish an informed overview of programme performance, the relationship between these measures was analysed.
METHODS: The Central Population Register (CPR) of Denmark was used to define the total population. The data sources were mammography screening programmes in Copenhagen (1991-2008) and Funen (1993-2008) and participation and coverage rates were calculated according to European guidelines. Long-term adherence was defined as the cumulative examination rate.
RESULTS: The participation rates were 71% in Copenhagen and 91% in Funen. The cumulative examination rates across all invitation rounds were between 21 and 24% lower than the average participation rates.
CONCLUSIONS: If the cumulative examination rate across all, or the majority of, invitation rounds is substantially lower than the average participation rate it may suggest that standard cross-sectional performance indicators overestimate the level of protection provided to the women targeted by the programme. Consequently, it may prove valuable to include cumulative examination rate as a performance indicator of mammography screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22233570     DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdr106

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)        ISSN: 1741-3842            Impact factor:   2.341


  6 in total

1.  Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.

Authors:  Katja Kemp Jacobsen; Ellen S O'Meara; Dustin Key; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Ilse Vejborg; Brian L Sprague; Elsebeth Lynge; My von Euler-Chelpin
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2015-06-01       Impact factor: 7.396

2.  Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.

Authors:  Katja Kemp Jacobsen; Linn Abraham; Diana S M Buist; Rebecca A Hubbard; Ellen S O'Meara; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske; Ilse Vejborg; My Von Euler-Chelpin; Sisse Helle Njor
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  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

4.  Long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer after false-positive results at mammography screening: joint analysis of three national cohorts.

Authors:  Marta Román; Solveig Hofvind; My von Euler-Chelpin; Xavier Castells
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  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

6.  Impact of invitation schemes on breast cancer screening coverage: A cohort study from Copenhagen, Denmark.

Authors:  Katja Kemp Jacobsen; My von Euler Chelpin; Ilse Vejborg; Elsebeth Lynge
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 2.136

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.