Cargando…
The effects of a UK review of Breast Cancer Screening on Uptake: An observational before/after study
OBJECTIVES: To measure whether uptake of breast cancer screening was affected by the publication of the Marmot Review and associated press coverage. SETTING: Eight NHS breast screening centres in the West Midlands of the UK. METHODS: Uptake of breast cancer screening invitations was compared in the...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3807969/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24009089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969141313497198 |
_version_ | 1782288527287910400 |
---|---|
author | Taylor-Phillips, Sian O'Sullivan, Emma Kearins, Olive Parsons, Helen Clarke, Aileen |
author_facet | Taylor-Phillips, Sian O'Sullivan, Emma Kearins, Olive Parsons, Helen Clarke, Aileen |
author_sort | Taylor-Phillips, Sian |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To measure whether uptake of breast cancer screening was affected by the publication of the Marmot Review and associated press coverage. SETTING: Eight NHS breast screening centres in the West Midlands of the UK. METHODS: Uptake of breast cancer screening invitations was compared in the week before and after the Marmot review publication. All 12,023 women invited for screening between 23 October 2012 and 5 November 2012 were included. A mixed effects model of the predictors of screening uptake (on date invited, or within 21 days) was created. Predictors considered for inclusion were whether the allocated screening appointment was before or after publication of the review, population factors (age, index of multiple deprivation income domain by quintile, previous attendance), and interaction terms. RESULTS: Uptake decreased after publication of the review from 65% to 62% (OR = 0.87 95%CI = 0.80–0.94), but a similar decrease was seen for the same dates on the previous year (OR = 0.85 95%CI = 0.78–0.93). Odds of attending screening were lower for women in the most deprived (uptake = 49%, OR = 0.54, 95%CI = 0.46–0.62) in comparison with the least deprived quintile (uptake = 71%). Odds of attendance also increased if the woman had ever previously attended (OR 3.9 95% CI 3.5–4.4), and decreased with each year of increasing age (OR 0.96 95% CI 0.96–0.97). There were no interactions between any of the other predictors and whether the appointment was before or after publication of the Marmot review. CONCLUSION: No change in uptake of breast cancer screening above normal seasonal variation was detected after publication of the Marmot review. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3807969 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-38079692013-10-29 The effects of a UK review of Breast Cancer Screening on Uptake: An observational before/after study Taylor-Phillips, Sian O'Sullivan, Emma Kearins, Olive Parsons, Helen Clarke, Aileen J Med Screen Original Articles OBJECTIVES: To measure whether uptake of breast cancer screening was affected by the publication of the Marmot Review and associated press coverage. SETTING: Eight NHS breast screening centres in the West Midlands of the UK. METHODS: Uptake of breast cancer screening invitations was compared in the week before and after the Marmot review publication. All 12,023 women invited for screening between 23 October 2012 and 5 November 2012 were included. A mixed effects model of the predictors of screening uptake (on date invited, or within 21 days) was created. Predictors considered for inclusion were whether the allocated screening appointment was before or after publication of the review, population factors (age, index of multiple deprivation income domain by quintile, previous attendance), and interaction terms. RESULTS: Uptake decreased after publication of the review from 65% to 62% (OR = 0.87 95%CI = 0.80–0.94), but a similar decrease was seen for the same dates on the previous year (OR = 0.85 95%CI = 0.78–0.93). Odds of attending screening were lower for women in the most deprived (uptake = 49%, OR = 0.54, 95%CI = 0.46–0.62) in comparison with the least deprived quintile (uptake = 71%). Odds of attendance also increased if the woman had ever previously attended (OR 3.9 95% CI 3.5–4.4), and decreased with each year of increasing age (OR 0.96 95% CI 0.96–0.97). There were no interactions between any of the other predictors and whether the appointment was before or after publication of the Marmot review. CONCLUSION: No change in uptake of breast cancer screening above normal seasonal variation was detected after publication of the Marmot review. SAGE Publications 2013-06 /pmc/articles/PMC3807969/ /pubmed/24009089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969141313497198 Text en Copyright http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Taylor-Phillips, Sian O'Sullivan, Emma Kearins, Olive Parsons, Helen Clarke, Aileen The effects of a UK review of Breast Cancer Screening on Uptake: An observational before/after study |
title | The effects of a UK review of Breast Cancer Screening on Uptake: An observational before/after study |
title_full | The effects of a UK review of Breast Cancer Screening on Uptake: An observational before/after study |
title_fullStr | The effects of a UK review of Breast Cancer Screening on Uptake: An observational before/after study |
title_full_unstemmed | The effects of a UK review of Breast Cancer Screening on Uptake: An observational before/after study |
title_short | The effects of a UK review of Breast Cancer Screening on Uptake: An observational before/after study |
title_sort | effects of a uk review of breast cancer screening on uptake: an observational before/after study |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3807969/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24009089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969141313497198 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT taylorphillipssian theeffectsofaukreviewofbreastcancerscreeningonuptakeanobservationalbeforeafterstudy AT osullivanemma theeffectsofaukreviewofbreastcancerscreeningonuptakeanobservationalbeforeafterstudy AT kearinsolive theeffectsofaukreviewofbreastcancerscreeningonuptakeanobservationalbeforeafterstudy AT parsonshelen theeffectsofaukreviewofbreastcancerscreeningonuptakeanobservationalbeforeafterstudy AT clarkeaileen theeffectsofaukreviewofbreastcancerscreeningonuptakeanobservationalbeforeafterstudy AT taylorphillipssian effectsofaukreviewofbreastcancerscreeningonuptakeanobservationalbeforeafterstudy AT osullivanemma effectsofaukreviewofbreastcancerscreeningonuptakeanobservationalbeforeafterstudy AT kearinsolive effectsofaukreviewofbreastcancerscreeningonuptakeanobservationalbeforeafterstudy AT parsonshelen effectsofaukreviewofbreastcancerscreeningonuptakeanobservationalbeforeafterstudy AT clarkeaileen effectsofaukreviewofbreastcancerscreeningonuptakeanobservationalbeforeafterstudy |