4.7 Article

Use of breast cancer screening and treatment services by Australian women aged 2544 years following Kylie Minogues breast cancer diagnosis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 37, 期 6, 页码 1326-1332

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyn090

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development
  2. Victorian Health Promotion Foundation
  3. Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To examine the effects of the publicity surrounding Kylie Minogues diagnosis with breast cancer on doctor-referred breast imaging, image-guided biopsy, and cancer excisions among a low-risk population of women in Australia. Method We examine changes in unilateral and bilateral breast imaging, image-guided breast biopsies, and surgical excisions of breast cancer before and after the announcement of Kylie Minogues diagnosis with breast cancer in May 2005. The study included procedures provided through the Australian public health system to women aged 2544 years from October 2004 and June 2006. Results The odds of women aged 2544 years undergoing imaging procedures increased by 20 in the first and second quarters after the Minogue publicity, compared to the preceding two quarters. The volume of biopsies als increased but the biopsy rate, measured as a proportion of imaging procedures, did not change among women aged 2534 years and decreased among women aged 3544 years. The volume of operations to excise breast cancers did not change for either age group. Compared to the 6 month period before the publicity, there was a large and significant decrease in the odds that an excision would follow biopsy (2534 years: OR 95 CI0.69, 0.480.98; 3544 years: OR 95 CI0.83, 0.720.95). Conclusions High-publicised illnesses may affect both consumer and provider behaviour. Although they present opportunities to improve public health, they also have the potential to adversely impact the appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of service delivery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据