BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to analyse whether the selection and recruitment for hospital-based mass screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is acceptable for the population according to the criteria from the Council of Europe. METHODS: A random sample of 4404 65-73-year-old males were invited to hospital-based mass screening for AAA. As methods of secondary recruitment, they could change their time of appointment, and non-responders were reinvited once. RESULTS: The attendance rate was 76 per cent; 4.2 per cent had AAA. Men with cardiopulmonary and vascular diseases had higher attendance rate (80.5 per cent), and prevalence of AAA (9.1 per cent). Men with potentially mobility-disabling diseases also had a higher attendance rate (80.4 per cent). However, possible unfavourable social selection was noticed in the group of retired men with no information of former occupation. They had 68.5 per cent attendance, and 7.6 per cent AAA. If true, this selection decreases the number of potentially diagnosed AAA by only 2 per cent. Opportunity of revised appointment and reinvitation of non-responders increased the primary attendance of 65 per cent to 76 per cent. More AAA were found at secondary scans (6.3 per cent compared with 3.9 per cent). CONCLUSION: The attendance rate fell markedly with age, but the recruitment was high even at the age of 73, and travel distance and social class did not markedly influence uptake. A positive morbidity selection to screening for AAA was observed for cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases and potentially mobility-disabling diseases. Furthermore, higher prevalence of AAA was found for initial nonattenders. Thus, screening for AAA seems acceptable to the population, and extra efforts to increase the attendance are beneficial without increased costs per diagnosed AAA. Finally, if mass-screening proves to be cost-ineffective, selective screening of patients with hypertension or ischaemic heart disease might be beneficial.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to analyse whether the selection and recruitment for hospital-based mass screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is acceptable for the population according to the criteria from the Council of Europe. METHODS: A random sample of 4404 65-73-year-old males were invited to hospital-based mass screening for AAA. As methods of secondary recruitment, they could change their time of appointment, and non-responders were reinvited once. RESULTS: The attendance rate was 76 per cent; 4.2 per cent had AAA. Men with cardiopulmonary and vascular diseases had higher attendance rate (80.5 per cent), and prevalence of AAA (9.1 per cent). Men with potentially mobility-disabling diseases also had a higher attendance rate (80.4 per cent). However, possible unfavourable social selection was noticed in the group of retired men with no information of former occupation. They had 68.5 per cent attendance, and 7.6 per cent AAA. If true, this selection decreases the number of potentially diagnosed AAA by only 2 per cent. Opportunity of revised appointment and reinvitation of non-responders increased the primary attendance of 65 per cent to 76 per cent. More AAA were found at secondary scans (6.3 per cent compared with 3.9 per cent). CONCLUSION: The attendance rate fell markedly with age, but the recruitment was high even at the age of 73, and travel distance and social class did not markedly influence uptake. A positive morbidity selection to screening for AAA was observed for cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases and potentially mobility-disabling diseases. Furthermore, higher prevalence of AAA was found for initial nonattenders. Thus, screening for AAA seems acceptable to the population, and extra efforts to increase the attendance are beneficial without increased costs per diagnosed AAA. Finally, if mass-screening proves to be cost-ineffective, selective screening of patients with hypertension or ischaemic heart disease might be beneficial.