Non-attendance of mammographic screening: the roles of age and municipality in a population-based Swedish sample

Maria Norfjord Zidar, Peter Larm, Per Tillgren, Sharareh Akhavan, Maria Norfjord Zidar, Peter Larm, Per Tillgren, Sharareh Akhavan

Abstract

Background: Inequality in health and health care is increasing in Sweden. Contributing to widening gaps are various factors that can be assessed by determinants, such as age, educational level, occupation, living area and country of birth. A health care service that can be used as an indicator of health inequality in Sweden is mammographic screening. The non-attendance rate is between 13 and 31 %, while the average is about 20 %. This study aims to shed light on three associations: between municipality and non-attendance, between age and non-attendance, and the interaction of municipality of residence and age in relation to non-attendance.

Methods: The study is based on data from the register that identifies attenders and non-attenders of mammographic screening in a Swedish county, namely the Radiological Information System (RIS). Further, in order to provide a socio-demographic profile of the county's municipalities, aggregated data for women in the age range 40-74 in 2012 were retrieved from Statistics Sweden (SCB), the Public Health Agency of Sweden, the National Board of Health and Welfare, and the Swedish Social Insurance Agency. The sample consisted of 52,541 women. Analysis conducted of the individual data were multivariate logistic regressions, and pairwise chi-square tests.

Results: The results show that age and municipality of residence associated with non-attendance of mammographic screening. Municipality of residence has a greater impact on non-attendance among women in the age group 70 to 74. For most of the age categories there were differences between the municipalities in regard to non-attendance to mammographic screening.

Conclusions: Age and municipality of residence affect attendance of mammographic screening. Since there is one sole and pre-selected mammographic screening facility in the county, distance to the screening facility may serve as one explanation to non-attendance which is a determinant of inequity. From an equity perspective, lack of equal access to health and health care influences facility utilization.

References

    1. Whitehead M, Dahlgren G. Levelling up (part 1): a discussion paper on European strategies for tackling social inequities in health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2006.
    1. Socialstyrelsen [The National Board of Health and Welfare] Screening för bröstcancer. Rekommendation och bedömningsunderlag Remissversion. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen; 2013.
    1. Patientavgifter i hälso- och sjukvården 2015 . Accessed 21 June 2015.
    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1. 0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013.
    1. Socialstyrelsen [The National Board of Health and Welfare] Official statistics of Sweden Statistics–Health and Medical Care Cancer Incidence in Sweden 2011. Stockholm. 2012.
    1. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1784–92. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa050518.
    1. Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjöld B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 2002;359:909–19. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08020-0.
    1. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0.
    1. Cancerfonden [The Swedish Cancer Society] Cancerfondens utredning om cancerprevention. Övergripande slutsatser, kunskapsunderlag och angelägna forskningsområden. Stockholm: Cancerfonden; 2004.
    1. Feig SA. Screening mammography: a successful public health initiative. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2006;20:125–33. doi: 10.1590/S1020-49892006000800009.
    1. Socialstyrelsen [The National Board of Health and Welfare] Värdet av populationsbaserad screening för bröstcancer. Stockholm. 2013.
    1. Dahlgren G, Whitehead M. European strategies for tackling social inequities in health: levelling up, Part 2. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2007.
    1. Jensen LF, Pedersen AF, Andersen B, Vedsted P. Identifying specific non-attending groups in breast cancer screening-population-based registry study of participation and socio-demography. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:518. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-12-518.
    1. Engelman KK, Hawley DB, Gazaway R, Mosier MC, Ahluwalia JS, Ellerbeck EF. Impact of geographic barriers on the utilization of mammograms by older rural women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50:62–8. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50009.x.
    1. Siahpush M, Singh GK. Sociodemographic variations in breast cancer screening behavior among Australian women: results from the 1995 National Health Survey. Prev Med. 1995;2002(35):174–80.
    1. Rahman S, Price JH, Dignan M, Rahman S, Lindquist PS, Jordan TR. Access to mammography facilities and detection of breast cancer by screening mammography: a GIS approach. Int J Canc Prev. 2009;2:403.
    1. Bulliard J-L, De Landtsheer J-P, Levi F. Profile of women not attending in the Swiss Mammography Screening Pilot Programme. Breast. 2004;13:284–9. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2004.03.001.
    1. Finkelstein MM. Preventive screening. What factors influence testing? Can Fam Physician. 2002;48:1494–501.
    1. Leung J, McKenzie S, Martin J, McLaughlin D. Effect of rurality on screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing mammography. Rural Remote Health. 2014;14:0.62–60.89.
    1. Maheswaran R, Pearson T, Jordan H, Black D. Socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, location of service, and uptake of breast cancer screening in North Derbyshire, UK. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:208–12. doi: 10.1136/jech.200X.038398.
    1. Linsell L, Forbes LJL, Patnick J, Wardle J, Austoker J, Ramirez AJ. Women’s preferences for the delivery of the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme: a cross-sectional survey. J Med Screen. 2010;17:176. doi: 10.1258/jms.2010.010037.
    1. Jensen LF, Pedersen AF, Andersen B, Fenger-Grøn M, Vedsted P. Distance to screening site and non-participation in screening for breast cancer: a population-based study. J Public Health. 2014;36:292–9. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdt068.
    1. Stark C, Reay L, Shiroyama C. The effect of access factors on breast screening attendance on two Scottish islands. Health Bull (Edinb) 1997;55:316–21.
    1. Hyndman JCG, Holman CDJ, Dawes VP. Effect of distance and social disadvantage on the response to invitations to attend mammography screening. J Med Screen. 2000;7:141–5. doi: 10.1136/jms.7.3.141.
    1. Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Manjer J, Janzon L. Non-attendance in breast cancer screening is associated with unfavourable socio-economic circumstances and advanced carcinoma. Int J Cancer. 2004;108:754–60. doi: 10.1002/ijc.11622.
    1. Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Abdsaleh S, Björneld L, Bordás P, Tabar L, et al. Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years. Cancer. 2011;117:714–22. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25650.
    1. Jonsson H, Bordás P, Wallin H, Nyström L, Lenner P. Service screening with mammography in Northern Sweden: effects on breast cancer mortality–an update. J Med Screen. 2007;14:87–93. doi: 10.1258/096914107781261918.
    1. Swedish Organised Service Screening Evaluation Group Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15:45–51. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0349.
    1. Lagerlund M, Sontrop JM, Zackrisson S. Psychosocial factors and attendance at a population-based mammography screening program in a cohort of Swedish women. BMC Womens Health. 2014;14:33. doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-14-33.
    1. Lagerlund M, Maxwell AE, Bastani R, Thurfjell E, Ekbom A, Lambe M. Sociodemographic predictors of non-attendance at invitational mammography screening–a population-based register study (Sweden) Cancer Causes Control. 2002;13:73–82. doi: 10.1023/A:1013978421073.
    1. Zackrisson S, Lindström M, Moghaddassi M, Andersson I, Janzon L. Social predictors of non-attendance in an urban mammographic screening programme: a multilevel analysis. Scand J Public Health. 2007;35:548–54. doi: 10.1080/14034940701291716.
    1. Johansson I, Berterö CM. Getting no respect: barriers to mammography for a group of Swedish women. Health Care Women Int. 2003;24:8. doi: 10.1080/07399330390169990.
    1. Lagerlund M, Hedin A, Sparén P, Thurfjell E, Lambe M. Attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge as predictors of nonattendance in a Swedish population-based mammography screening program. Prev Med. 2000;31:417–28. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0723.
    1. Population by region, marital status, age and sex. Year 1968–2014. . Accessed 6 Oct 2015.
    1. Jordbruksverket [Swedish Board of Agriculture] Så gjorde vi Allt om landet. Jönköping. 2013.
    1. Number of inhabitants. Population 31 December by region, marital status, age and sex. Year 2012. . Accessed 21 Dec 2015.
    1. Population 16+ years (RAMS) by region, employment, age and sex. Year 2004–2014. . Accessed 21 Dec 2015.
    1. Folkhälsomyndigheten [Public Health Agency of Sweden] Definitioner, kommentarer och källor Folkhälsodata och FolkhälsoAtlas. Stockholm: Folkhälsomyndigheten; 2014.
    1. Population by region, marital status, age and sex. Year 1968–2014. . Accessed 21 Dec 2015.
    1. Statistiska Centralbyrån [Statistics Sweden] MIS SUN 2000. Stockholm: Statistiska Centralbyrån; 2000.
    1. Försäkringskassan-Ohälsotalet. . Accessed 21 Dec 2015.
    1. Antal och andel personer efter region, boendeform, ålder och kön. År 2012–2014. . Accessed 21 Dec 2015.
    1. Foreign born persons by region, age in ten year groups and sex. Year 2001–2014. . Accessed 21 Dec 2015.
    1. Rahman SM, Dignan MB, Shelton BJ. Factors influencing adherence to guidelines for screening mammography among women aged 40 years and older. Ethn Dis. 2003;13:477.
    1. Huang B, Dignan M, Han D, Johnson O. Does distance matter? Distance to mammography facilities and stage at diagnosis of breast cancer in Kentucky. J Rural Health. 2009;25:366–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2009.00245.x.
    1. Kawachi I, Subramanian S, Almeida-Filho N. A glossary for health inequalities. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56:647–52. doi: 10.1136/jech.56.9.647.
    1. Dahlgren G, Whitehead M. Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health. 1991. Stockholm: Institute for Policy Studies; 2007.
    1. Whitehead M, Dahlgren G. Concepts and principles for tackling social inequities in health: Levelling up Part 1. World Health Organization: Studies on social and economic determinants of population health. 2006. p. 2.
    1. Jackson MC, Davis WW, Waldron W, McNeel TS, Pfeiffer R, Breen N. Impact of geography on mammography use in California. Cancer Causes Control. 2009;20:1339–53. doi: 10.1007/s10552-009-9355-6.
    1. Doescher MP, Jackson JE. Trends in cervical and breast cancer screening practices among women in rural and urban areas of the United States. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2009;15:200–9. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181a117da.
    1. Samhällsbyggnadsenheten . Bostadsmarknadsanalys 2014 Västmanlands län. Västerås. 2014.
    1. Elkin EB, Ishill NM, Snow JG, Panageas KS, Bach PB, Liberman L, et al. Geographic access and the use of screening mammography. Med Care. 2010;48:349–56. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181ca3ecb.
    1. Statistiska Centralbyrån [Statistics Sweden] The future population of Sweden 2012–2060. Stockholm: Statistiska Centralbyrån; 2012.
    1. van Schoor G, Moss SM, Otten JD, Donders R, Paap E, den Heeten GJ, et al. Effective biennial mammographic screening in women aged 40–49. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:3137–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.09.041.
    1. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, Smart CR. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40–49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;1997:87–92.
    1. Independent UK Panel The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0.
    1. Kerlikowske K. Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years: comparison of relative and absolute benefit. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;1997:79–86.
    1. Jørgensen KJ, Zahl P-H, Gøtzsche PC. Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. BMJ. 2010;340:c1241. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1241.
    1. Malmgren JA, Parikh J, Atwood MK, Kaplan HG. Improved prognosis of women aged 75 and older with mammography-detected breast cancer. Radiology. 2014;273:686–94. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14140209.
    1. Breast Cancer Prevention and Early Detection. . Accessed 21 Dec 2015.
    1. Cancerfonden . Cancerfondsrapporten 2014. Stockholm. 2014.
    1. Rolnick J. Aggregate health data in the United States: steps toward a public good. Health Informatics J. 2013;19:137–51. doi: 10.1177/1460458212462077.
    1. Perneger TV. What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ. 1998;316:1236. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren