4.3 Article

The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program: re-attendance related to the women's experiences, intentions and previous screening result

期刊

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 391-398

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023918610664

关键词

experiences; intentions; mammography; re-attendance; screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To survey factors of importance for attendance in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP). Methods: Simple forced choice questionnaires were sent to 1221 women, in four categories: not attended, screened negative, false positive, and breast cancer cases. The response rate was 80.7%. Results: Women who were invited to the NBCSP reported positive opinions about being invited and the provided information. This response was independent of attendance and screening result. An experience of pain during screening examination was reported in the same proportion among women who were screened negative and false positive (p = 0.27). Unsatisfactory care was reported in a significantly lower rate among women who were screened negative, compared to the false positive (p = 0.02) and breast cancer cases (p < 0.01). Re-attendance was significantly higher among women who were screened negative (91.8%), compared to the false positive (83.9%, p < 0.01). Experienced pain seemed to influence re-attendance among the false positive, while care seemed to influence re-attendance among women who were screened negative. Intention to re-attend was significantly associated with the rate of re-attendance (p < 0.01) and it was the only significant predictor for re-attendance (OR = 5.4, 95% CI: 1.8-16.7) in a multiple logistic regression analysis with intention, age, experienced pain, experienced care and waiting time included in the model. Age did not have much influence on results. Conclusion: Women, who were invited to the NBCSP, reported positive opinions about the program. Re-attendance was related to previous screening results, partly by, experienced pain and care.

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

4.3
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