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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taylor-Phillips, Sian, O'Sullivan, Emma, Kearins, Olive, Parsons, Helen, Clarke, Aileen
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