Literature DB >> 8037957

A comparative study of re-attenders and non-re-attenders for second triennial National Breast Screening Programme appointments.

G Marshall1.   

Abstract

This study, funded by the National Breast Screening Programme, was undertaken in 1992 at the Helen Garrod Breast Screening Unit, Nottingham. In a sample of 400 women who attended first round screening in 1989 and remained eligible for screening 10 per cent failed to attend triennial recall. A sample of a further 400 women who had been screened previously containing 200 women who re-attended for second round screening and 200 who failed to re-attend were studied anonymously by questionnaire. No significant difference existed between re-attenders and non-re-attenders in their perceived personal risk of breast cancer. A significant difference existed between the two groups in (1) their knowledge of breast cancer, (2) their ease of attending for screening, and (3) their previous experience of breast screening. Half of the women who failed to return implicated their initial visit in this decision--41 per cent implicating pain, 6 per cent stress and 3 per cent embarrassment. Hence a small percentage (5 per cent) of women do not re-attend for screening because of a negative experience at their initial visit. Every effort should therefore be made to make screening as acceptable as possible.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8037957     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042939

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Public Health Med        ISSN: 0957-4832


  7 in total

1.  Predictors of returning for second round screening at a population based mammographic screening programme in Melbourne, Australia.

Authors:  J Cockburn; P Schofield; V White; D Hill; I Russell
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Self-compression Technique vs Standard Compression in Mammography: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Philippe Henrot; Martine Boisserie-Lacroix; Véronique Boute; Philippe Troufléau; Bruno Boyer; Grégory Lesanne; Véronique Gillon; Emmanuel Desandes; Edith Netter; Maryam Saadate; Anne Tardivon; Christine Grentzinger; Julia Salleron; Guillaume Oldrini
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 21.873

3.  Can Breast Compression Be Reduced in Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis?

Authors:  Greeshma A Agasthya; Ellen D'Orsi; Yoon-Jin Kim; Priyanka Handa; Christopher P Ho; Carl J D'Orsi; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Breast and cervical cancer screening among women in metropolitan areas of the United States by county-level commuting time to work and use of public transportation, 2004 and 2006.

Authors:  Steven S Coughlin; Jessica King
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-03-19       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  Mammography screening of women in their 40s: impact of changes in screening guidelines.

Authors:  Lisa Calvocoressi; Albert Sun; Stanislav V Kasl; Elizabeth B Claus; Beth A Jones
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Prospective study of factors predicting adherence to surveillance mammography in women treated for breast cancer.

Authors:  Rebecca A Shelby; Cindy D Scipio; Tamara J Somers; Mary Scott Soo; Kevin P Weinfurt; Francis J Keefe
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-02-13       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Are health-care relationships important for mammography adherence in Latinas?

Authors:  Vanessa B Sheppard; Judy Wang; Bin Yi; Toni Michelle Harrison; Shibao Feng; Elmer E Huerta; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-07       Impact factor: 5.128

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.