4.7 Article

Attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge as predictors of nonattendance in a Swedish population-based mammography screening program

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 31, Issue 4, Pages 417-428

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0723

Keywords

mammography; mass screening; breast cancer; attitudes; Sweden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The effectiveness of mammography screening could be improved if factors that influence nonattendance were better understood. Methods. We examined attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge in relation to nonattendance in a population-based mammography screening program, using a case-control design. Data were collected from November 1997 to March 1998 through telephone interviews with 434 nonattenders and 515 attenders identified in a population-based mammography register in central Sweden. The questions asked drew primarily upon the components constituting the Health Belief Model. Results. Multivariate analysis showed that nonattendance was most common among women within the highest quartile of perceived emotional barriers, compared to women within the lowest quartile (OR = 4.81; 95% CI 2.96-7.82). Women who worried most about breast cancer were more likely to attend than those who worried least (OR = 0.09; 95% CI 0.02-0.31). Women with the highest scores of perceived benefits were more likely to attend than women with the lowest ones (OR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.08-0.75). Other factors associated with nonattendance were less knowledge about mammography and breast cancer, lack of advice from a health professional to participate, and very poor trust in health care. Conclusions, Our findings suggest that increased participation in outreach mammography screening programs can be achieved through enhancement of breast cancer awareness and possibly by reducing some of the modifiable barriers. (C) 2000 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available