Literature DB >> 7943490

Recruitment activities and sociodemographic factors that predict attendance at a mammographic screening program.

S F Hurley1, R M Huggins, D J Jolley, D Reading.   

Abstract

A random sample of 2266 women aged 50 to 69 years was used to investigate factors that predict attendance at a free Australian mammographic screening program. The most important predictor was receipt of a personal invitation letter. A letter that included an appointment time increased attendance 132-fold initially and decreased to 20 times baseline after 14 days. A letter that did not include an appointment time increased attendance 12-fold, and a second letter to nonattenders increased attendance approximately 13-fold. Attendance declined with increasing distance from the program and with increases in the percentage of non-English speaking women in a neighborhood, but was higher in areas of higher socioeconomic status.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7943490      PMCID: PMC1615067          DOI: 10.2105/ajph.84.10.1655

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Public Health        ISSN: 0090-0036            Impact factor:   9.308


  11 in total

Review 1.  The benefits and risks of mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  S F Hurley; J M Kaldor
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 6.222

2.  Screening: the need for a population register.

Authors:  S F Hurley
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1990-09-17       Impact factor: 7.738

3.  Factors associated with repeat adherence to breast cancer screening.

Authors:  C Lerman; B Rimer; B Trock; A Balshem; P F Engstrom
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  Effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of recruitment strategies for a mammographic screening program to detect breast cancer.

Authors:  S F Hurley; D J Jolley; P M Livingston; D Reading; J Cockburn; D Flint-Richter
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1992-06-03       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Boosting recruitment to breast screening programmes.

Authors:  J Cockburn; T De Luise; D Hill; S Hurley; D Reading; I Russell
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1990-03-19       Impact factor: 7.738

6.  Randomised trial of two strategies offering women mobile screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  E M Williams; M P Vessey
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-07-15

7.  Impact of efforts to increase participation in repetitive screenings for early breast cancer detection.

Authors:  R Fink; S Shapiro; R Roester
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1972-03       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Personal costs incurred by women attending a mammographic screening programme.

Authors:  S F Hurley; P M Livingston
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1991-01-21       Impact factor: 7.738

9.  Increasing mammography utilization: a controlled study.

Authors:  S W Fletcher; R P Harris; J J Gonzalez; D Degnan; D R Lannin; V J Strecher; C Pilgrim; D Quade; J A Earp; R L Clark
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-01-20       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Exploration of factors affecting mammography behaviors.

Authors:  D N Rutledge; W H Hartmann; P O Kinman; A C Winfield
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 4.018

View more
  12 in total

1.  The relation of household income to mammography utilization in a prepaid health care system.

Authors:  M B Barton; S Moore; E Shtatland; R Bright
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Intra-urban differences in breast cancer mortality: a study from the city of Malmö in Sweden.

Authors:  J Manjer; G Berglund; L Bondesson; J P Garne; L Janzon; A Lindgren; J Malina; S Matson
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Do vouchers improve breast cancer screening rates? Results from a randomized trial.

Authors:  T J Stoner; B Dowd; W P Carr; G Maldonado; T R Church; J Mandel
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Breast and cervical cancer screening: knowledge, attitudes and behavior among schoolteachers in Italy.

Authors:  M Pavia; G Ricciardi; A Bianco; P Pantisano; E Langiano; I F Angelillo
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 8.082

5.  Characteristics of mammography facility locations and stage of breast cancer at diagnosis in Chicago.

Authors:  Elizabeth Tarlov; Shannon N Zenk; Richard T Campbell; Richard B Warnecke; Richard Block
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 3.671

6.  How should we interpret noncompliance with screening mammography?

Authors:  H Bryant
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-05-01       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  A consultation with Canadian rural women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Ross E Gray; Pamela James; Jackie Manthorne; Judy Gould; Margaret I Fitch
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Psychological predictors of attendance at annual breast screening examinations.

Authors:  M V Burton; R Warren; D Price; H Earl
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Comparison of various characteristics of women who do and do not attend for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Emily Banks; Valerie Beral; Rebecca Cameron; Ann Hogg; Nicola Langley; Isobel Barnes; Diana Bull; Gillian Reeves; Ruth English; Sarah Taylor; Jon Elliman; Carole Lole Harris
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2001-11-06       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Will they participate? Predicting patients' response to clinical trial invitations in a pediatric emergency department.

Authors:  Yizhao Ni; Andrew F Beck; Regina Taylor; Jenna Dyas; Imre Solti; Jacqueline Grupp-Phelan; Judith W Dexheimer
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 4.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.