No abstract

Objective Increased knowledge of breast cancer risk factors enables a shift from one‐size‐fits‐all breast cancer screening to a risk‐based approach, tailoring screening policy to a woman's individual risk. New opportunities for prevention will arise. However, before this novel screening and prevention program is introduced, its acceptability from a woman's perspective needs to be explored. Methods Women eligible for breast cancer screening in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Sweden were invited to take part in focus groups. A total of 143 women participated. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Analysis identified five themes across the three countries. The first theme “impact of knowledge” describes women's concern of not being able to unlearn their risk, perceiving it as either a motivator for change or a burden which may lead to stigma. The second theme “belief in science” explains women's need to trust the science behind the risk assessment and subsequent care pathways. Theme three “emotional impact” explores, eg, women's perceived anxiety and (false) reassurance, which may result from knowing their risk. Theme four “decision making” highlights cultural differences in shared versus individual decision making. Theme five “attitude to medication” explores the controversial topic of offering preventative medication for breast cancer risk reduction. Conclusions Acceptability of risk‐based screening and prevention is mixed. Women's perceptions are informed by a lack of knowledge, cultural norms, and common emotional concerns, which highlights the importance of tailored educational materials and risk counselling to aid either shared or individual informed decision making.

Our aim was to estimate the prevalence of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in a Swedish urban female population. The cross-sectional study design included 8,000 randomly selected female residents in Stockholm, 30-79-year old. A postal questionnaire enquired about symptomatic POP, using a validated set of five questions, and about urinary incontinence and demographic data. Of 5,489 women providing adequate information, 454 (8.3%, 95% confidence interval 7.3-9.1%) were classified as having symptomatic POP. The prevalence rose with increasing age but leveled off after age 60. In a logistic regression model that disentangled the independent effects, parity emerged as a considerably stronger risk factor than age. There was a ten-fold gradient in prevalence odds of POP with parity, the steepest slope (four-fold) being between nulliparous and primiparous women. The prevalence of frequent stress urinary incontinence was 8.9% and that of frequent urge incontinence 5.9%. Out of the 454 women with prolapse, 37.4% had either or both types of incontinence.

In this nonconsulting population, age and parity were the dominating risk factors, but significant independent associations with markers suggestive of congenital susceptibility (family history and conditions signaling weak connective tissue) and nonobstetric strain on the pelvic floor (overweight/obesity, heavy lifting, and constipation) imply that individual predisposition and lifestyle/environment also may play an important role. The causal direction of the association with bowel habits remains uncertain, and the link to family history could be partly because of information bias.