Line Flytkjær Jensen1, Anette Fischer Pedersen2, Berit Andersen3, Peter Vedsted2. 1. Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark Section for General Medical Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark Research Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care (CaP), Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark Department for Public Health Programs, Regional Hospital of Randers, Central Denmark Region, Skovlyvej 1, 8930 Randers NE, Denmark. 2. Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark Research Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care (CaP), Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. 3. Department for Public Health Programs, Regional Hospital of Randers, Central Denmark Region, Skovlyvej 1, 8930 Randers NE, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social support may have an impact on screening participation. We studied the association between social support in 2006, defined as frequencies of contacts, instrumental support and emotional support and participation in breast cancer screening in 2008-09. METHODS: This population-based cohort study included 4512 women who had participated in a Health Survey in 2006 and who also were in the target group for the first round of organized breast cancer screening in the Central Denmark region in 2008-09. RESULTS: Women with infrequent contacts with friends and family in 2006 were more likely not to participate in screening in 2008-09 [prevalence ratio (PR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-2.26, P-value < 0.001 and PR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.20, P-value < 0.001, respectively] as were women who reported not to have someone to look after her home if she was away for some time and women who reported usually not or never having someone to turn to with personal concerns (PR 1.97, 95% CI 1.53-2.54, P-value < 0.001 and PR 1.42, 95% CI 1.14-1.77, P-value = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Low social support, indicated by items in each social support attribute, was associated with non-participation in breast cancer screening in 2008-09. Targeted social interventions may, therefore, have an impact on future screening behaviour, which calls for further research.
BACKGROUND: Social support may have an impact on screening participation. We studied the association between social support in 2006, defined as frequencies of contacts, instrumental support and emotional support and participation in breast cancer screening in 2008-09. METHODS: This population-based cohort study included 4512 women who had participated in a Health Survey in 2006 and who also were in the target group for the first round of organized breast cancer screening in the Central Denmark region in 2008-09. RESULTS:Women with infrequent contacts with friends and family in 2006 were more likely not to participate in screening in 2008-09 [prevalence ratio (PR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-2.26, P-value < 0.001 and PR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.20, P-value < 0.001, respectively] as were women who reported not to have someone to look after her home if she was away for some time and women who reported usually not or never having someone to turn to with personal concerns (PR 1.97, 95% CI 1.53-2.54, P-value < 0.001 and PR 1.42, 95% CI 1.14-1.77, P-value = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Low social support, indicated by items in each social support attribute, was associated with non-participation in breast cancer screening in 2008-09. Targeted social interventions may, therefore, have an impact on future screening behaviour, which calls for further research.
Authors: Ying-Hsuan Tai; Ta-Liang Chen; Yih-Giun Cherng; Chun-Chieh Yeh; Chuen-Chau Chang; Chien-Chang Liao Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jianxin Zhang; Zimo Sha; Yuzhou Gu; Yanzhang Li; Qinlan Yang; Yuxuan Zhu; Yuan He Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Rebecca Mottram; Wendy Lynn Knerr; Daniel Gallacher; Hannah Fraser; Lena Al-Khudairy; Abimbola Ayorinde; Sian Williamson; Chidozie Nduka; Olalekan A Uthman; Samantha Johnson; Alexander Tsertsvadze; Christopher Stinton; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Aileen Clarke Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Marko Elovainio; Sonja Lumme; Martti Arffman; Kristiina Manderbacka; Eero Pukkala; Christian Hakulinen Journal: SSM Popul Health Date: 2021-06-11