Literature DB >> 8790507

Encouraging attendance at a screening mammography programme: determinants of response to different recruitment strategies.

P E Schofield1, J Cockburn, D J Hill, D Reading.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To predict attendance at a mammographic screening programme after a community health promotion campaign and attendance after a personal invitation in addition to that campaign.
SETTING: A pilot mammographic screening programme in Melbourne, Australia.
METHODS: Attendance was encouraged by a community health promotion campaign and one year later, a personal invitation was sent to all women who had not yet attended. Drawn from two regions of a defined area (close to and distant from the screening centre), 618 women were interviewed before the programme started, and subsequent attendance at the programme was recorded.
RESULTS: Over half of the women (58%) in the sample residing close to the screening centre and 44% of women in the more distant sample attended. The personal invitation boosted attendance, particularly in the distal sample where attendance was predicted by ease of access to the programme; positive intention to attend; moderate experience of, perceived susceptibility to, concern about, and knowledge of breast cancer; adoption of other preventive health behaviours; having a job; and older age. Proximity to the programme, positive initial intentions, having heard of a mammogram, no concern about radiation from a mammogram, high personal control over health, and belonging to a club were associated with attendance after exposure to only the health promotion campaign. A personal invitation encouraged attendance among women without these characteristics.
CONCLUSION: A personal invitation in addition to a community promotion campaign seems to overcome many barriers to attendance. Attendance may be further increased by informing women of the benefits of early detection and improving access to the screening centre.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8790507     DOI: 10.1177/096914139400100303

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  10 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

Review 2.  Increasing screening mammography among immigrant and minority women in Canada: a review of past interventions.

Authors:  Nour Schoueri-Mychasiw; Sharon Campbell; Verna Mai
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2013-02

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.  Coverage of cancer in local television news.

Authors:  Walter Gantz; Zheng Wang
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.037

5.  Breast screening: a randomised controlled trial in UK general practice of three interventions designed to increase uptake.

Authors:  D J Sharp; T J Peters; J Bartholomew; A Shaw
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  Recruiting women for breast screening. Family Physician Model strategy.

Authors:  R G McAuley; C Rand; M Levine
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 3.275

7.  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

8.  Variations in outcomes by residential location for women with breast cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Paramita Dasgupta; Peter D Baade; Danny R Youlden; Gail Garvey; Joanne F Aitken; Isabella Wallington; Jennifer Chynoweth; Helen Zorbas; Philippa H Youl
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-04-29       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Organized screening programmes for breast and cervical cancer in 17 EU countries: trajectories of attendance rates.

Authors:  Maria Michela Gianino; Jacopo Lenzi; Marco Bonaudo; Maria Pia Fantini; Roberta Siliquini; Walter Ricciardi; Gianfranco Damiani
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Screening rates and characteristics of health plan members who respond to screening reminders.

Authors:  Jun Zhu; James Davis; Deborah A Taira; Marisa Yamashita
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2006-03-15       Impact factor: 2.830

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.