4.2 Article

Overuse of mammography during the first round of an organized breast cancer screening programme

期刊

JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 620-625

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01062.x

关键词

follow-up studies; mammography; mass screening; patient acceptance of health care; Switzerland

资金

  1. Geneva Cancer League

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives We examined the frequency of mammography screening among women who had had a screening mammogram recently and therefore generally did not need to repeat the examination. Methods A population-based sample of 50- to 69-year-old women were surveyed immediately before and 8 months after they received an invitation to participate in the first round of screening of the newly organized mammography screening programme in Geneva, Switzerland. These women also received a booklet that included the recommendation to have screening mammograms at 2-year intervals. Results The baseline survey identified 660 women who had had a mammogram within the previous 12 months. Of these, 23.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 20.0-26.6] had an opportunistic mammogram and 4.1% (95% CI, 2.7-5.9) had an organized mammogram during follow-up. Women who had had their last mammogram 6-12 months prior to baseline (vs. more recently), intended to have a mammogram within the next 6 months, wished to receive more information on mammography screening, and had a history of surgical breast biopsy were more likely to have an unnecessary screening mammogram (either organized or opportunistic) during follow-up. Compared with women who had an opportunistic mammogram, women who had an organized mammogram were more likely to be of lower socioeconomic status, to have made their own screening decision and to have anticipated the date of their next mammogram by no more than a few months. Conclusions Opportunistic mammography screening in excess of recommendation is common, and persists despite explicit advice about recommended screening frequency.

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

4.2
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