Literature DB >> 7365391

Acceptors and rejectors of an invitation to undergo breast screening compared with those who referred themselves.

P Hobbs, A Smith, W D George, R A Sellwood.   

Abstract

All women aged 50--79 were invited by two group practices to undergo screening and 57% accepted. Women of the same age range in other practices, who referred themselves, were also screened. Interview with random samples of 100 invited screened women (acceptors), 100 invited unscreened women (rejectors), and 50 self-referred women enabled comparisons to be made of personal and social characteristics, previous health behaviour, and beliefs about cancer in the three groups. Self-referral was associated with lower age, higher social class, and higher educational levels. Women accepting invitations included more who had previously used other screening procedures, for example, cervical smears and chest x rays, than those rejecting invitations. Previous use of screening was even more among self-referred women. Acceptance of screening was associated with belief in the possibilities of curing cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1980        PMID: 7365391      PMCID: PMC1052034          DOI: 10.1136/jech.34.1.19

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


  1 in total

1.  Screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  W D George; E N Gleave; P C England; M C Wilson; R A Sellwood; D Asbury; G Hartley; P G Barker; P Hobbs; J Wakefield
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1976-10-09
  1 in total
  20 in total

1.  Screening behaviors among relatives of breast cancer patients.

Authors:  V G Vogel
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Breast cancer risk and participation in mammographic screening.

Authors:  S Taplin; C Anderman; L Grothaus
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Determinants of non-compliance to recommendations on breast cancer screening among women participating in the French E3N cohort study.

Authors:  Camille Flamant; Estelle Gauthier; Françoise Clavel-Chapelon
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.497

4.  The canadian national breast screening study: why it deserves support.

Authors:  C J Baines; A B Miller
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research.

Authors:  Flavia M Facio; Stephanie Brooks; Johanna Loewenstein; Susannah Green; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-07-06       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Genetic counseling outcomes: perceived risk and distress after counseling for hereditary colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Ann-Marie Codori; Tracy Waldeck; Gloria M Petersen; Diana Miglioretti; Jill D Trimbath; Miriam A Tillery
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 7.  Adherence and psychological adjustment among women at high risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  C Lerman; M Schwartz
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Attendance at a breast screening clinic: a problem of administration or attitudes.

Authors:  K French; A M Porter; S E Robinson; F M McCallum; J G Howie; M M Roberts
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1982 Aug 28-Sep 4

9.  Some thoughts on why women don't do breast self-examination.

Authors:  C J Baines
Journal:  Can Med Assoc J       Date:  1983-02-01       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  Will a breast screening programme change the workload and referral practice of general practitioners?

Authors:  J Ashby; M Buxton; H Gravelle
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.