4.5 Article

Uptake of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening. A Cohort Study

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2013.02.018

关键词

Aortic aneurysm; Abdominal; Population screening; Rural population; Rural health services; Socioeconomic factors; Public health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) are responsible for 1.4% of UK deaths. Deprivation is a risk factor for AAA. Screening reduces AAA related mortality and is cost effective if uptake remains high. The Highland aneurysm screening programme (HASP) began in 2001 offering screening to men in a sparsely populated area. The aim was to identify whether uptake varies with deprivation or rurality, in the context of an established programme. Methods: Retrospective interrogation of HASP records was performed on all men offered screening from 2001 until 2010. Deprivation and rurality status were derived from postcode of residence (SIMD'09 and URC'08) and the relationships with screening uptake were examined. Results: Mean uptake over the decade was 90.1%. There was a strong association between deprivation and uptake, which ranged from 79.5% in the most deprived population to 97.5% in the least deprived (p < 0.001). The odds of men who were least deprived attending was 10.6 times higher than those who were most deprived (p < 0.001). Higher uptake was observed in more rural areas (p = 0.02). When combined in a logistic regression model, only deprivation remained significant, indicating any apparent effect of rurality was explained by deprivation. No change was observed in the mean aortic diameter of 65-year-old men or the incidence of AAA. Conclusion: HASP has a high uptake even in the most deprived and rural populations, demonstrating that programme design has overcome any potential rural disadvantage. A gradient of uptake associated with deprivation remains, although even the most deprived have an uptake of almost 80%. (C) 2013 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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