4.5 Article

Adjusting the frequency of mammography screening on the basis of genetic risk: Attitudes among women in the UK

Journal

BREAST
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 237-241

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.02.001

Keywords

Breast cancer; Stratified screening; Population survey; Women's attitude

Funding

  1. Eve Appeal [509050]
  2. Cancer Research UK [508007]
  3. CR-UK, CRUK-UCL Cancer Centre
  4. Cancer Research UK [13065, 12677] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To explore public attitudes towards modifying frequency of mammography screening based on genetic risk. Methods: Home-based interviews were carried out with a population-based sample of 942 women aged 18-74 years in the UK. Demographic characteristics and perceived breast cancer (BC) risk were examined as predictors of support for risk-stratified BC screening and of the acceptability of raised or lowered screening frequency based on genetic risk, using multivariate logistic regression. Results: Over two-thirds of respondents (65.8%) supported the idea of varying screening frequency on the basis of genetic risk. The majority (85.4%) were willing to have more frequent breast screening if they were found to be at higher risk, but fewer (58.8%) were willing to have less frequent screening if at lower risk (t (956) = 15.6, p < 0.001). Ethnic minority status was associated with less acceptability of more frequent screening (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.21-0.74), but there were no other significant demographic correlates. Higher perceived risk of BC was associated with greater acceptability of more frequent screening (OR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.27-2.30). Conclusion: Women were positive about adjusting the frequency of mammography screening in line with personal genetic risk, but it will be important to develop effective communication materials to minimise resistance to reducing screening frequency for those at lower genetic risk. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available