Mammography Use in Older Women With Regular Physicians: What are the Predictors?

Mayer-Oakes, S. Allison; Atchison, Kathryn A.; Matthias, Ruth E.; Lubben, James E.; Schweitzer, Simone; Jong, Fred J. De

doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(18)30369-6

Cited by 27 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have reported that women having undergone a Papanicolaou smear and a mammography within the past year were more likely to having had a screening colonoscopy performed [26,27,28]. Interestingly, there was no significant difference between both groups in terms of primary prevention and healthy lifestyle, an attitude that usually is independent of consultations with the primary physician.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Attitude to Secondary Prevention and Concerns about Colonoscopy Are Independent Predictors of Acceptance of Screening Colonoscopy

Ziegler

Schubring-Giese²,

Bühner³

et al. 2010

Digestion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Colonoscopy in combination with endoscopic polypectomy has been shown to be an efficient measure for reducing colorectal cancer incidence. In Germany, a colorectal cancer screening program based on colonoscopy for individuals aged 55 and above was introduced in 2002. However, for largely unknown reasons, participation rates remain low. The purpose of this study was to identify factors influencing compliance with colorectal cancer screening. Methods: A structured survey of 239 individuals aged 55–79 years was performed. Statistical analysis included χ² test, t test, principal component analysis, and logistic regression. Results: 56% of previously screened, but only 26% of non-screened individuals had received a recommendation to undergo screening colonoscopy. 50% of the non-screened believed a screening colonoscopy should only be performed in case of complaints. Univariate analysis identified participation in any secondary prevention measures (p < 0.001), concerns about colonoscopy (p < 0.012), and knowledge about colorectal cancer (p < 0.001) as critical issues distinguishing between groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that secondary prevention (p < 0.001) and concerns about colonoscopy (p = 0.026) were independent predictors of compliance with screening recommendations. Conclusion: Our survey has identified critical factors deterring compliance with colorectal cancer screening recommendations. This will help to direct future campaigns in order to increase participation in colorectal cancer screening.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Attitude to Secondary Prevention and Concerns about Colonoscopy Are Independent Predictors of Acceptance of Screening Colonoscopy

Ziegler

Schubring-Giese²,

Bühner³

et al. 2010

Digestion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ten of the papers showed a significant positive association between the two screening behaviours, such that those who have participated in breast screening are more likely also to attend for cervical screening, 87,118,144,[158][159][160][161][162][163][164] and the remaining two showed no association.…”

Section: Cervical Screening Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ten out of 12 papers found positive associations between mammography use and health prevention behaviours but, again, none of these studies had baseline measures so the direction of the association cannot be ascertained. 87,118,133,146,[158][159][160][161]164,172 Two studies reported no association. 123,136 One study found positive associations between mammography and tetanus immunisation, sigmoidoscopy screening and faecal occult blood testing, but no associations between breast screening and smoking behaviours, exercise, seatbelt use, aspirin or hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use.…”

Section: Other Preventive Health Behavioursmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of screening on future health-promoting behaviours and health beliefs: a systematic review

Bankhead

Brett²,

Bukach³

et al. 2003

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per monograph and for the rest of the world £3 per monograph.You can order HTA monographs from our Despatch Agents:-fax (with credit card or official purchase order) -post (with credit card or official purchase order or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you either to pay securely by credit card or to print out your order and then post or fax it. Contact details are as follows: Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to Direct Mail Works Ltd and drawn on a bank with a UK address. Paying by credit cardThe following cards are accepted by phone, fax, post or via the website ordering pages: Delta, Eurocard, Mastercard, Solo, Switch and Visa. We advise against sending credit card details in a plain email. Paying by official purchase orderYou can post or fax these, but they must be from public bodies (i.e. NHS or universities) within the UK. We cannot at present accept purchase orders from commercial companies or from outside the UK. How do I get a copy of HTA on CD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd.htm). Or contact Direct Mail Works (see contact details above) by email, post, fax or phone. HTA on CD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA Programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTA NHS R&D HTA ProgrammeT he NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme was set up in 1993 to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.Initially, six HTA panels (pharmaceuticals, acute sector, primary and community care, diagnostics and imaging, population screening, methodology) helped to set the research priorities for the HTA Programme. However, during the past few years there have been a number of changes in and around NHS R&D, such as the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the creation of three new research programmes: Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO); New and Emerging Applications of Technology (NEAT); and the Methodology Programme.This has meant that the HTA panels can now focus more explicitly on health technologies ('health technologies' are broadly defined to include all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care) rather than settings of care. Therefore the panel structure was replaced in 2000 by three new panels: Pharmaceuticals; Therapeutic Procedures (including devices and operations); and Diagnostic Technologies and Screening.The HTA Programme will continue to commission both primary and secondary research. The HTA Commissioning Board, supported by the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA...

show abstract

“…breast and cervical cancer screening) (14-18) or practice other preventive health behaviors (e.g. colorectal cancer screening and regular seat belt use) (19, 20). In addition, studies have documented that individuals who are changing one health behavior may be trying to change multiple behaviors simultaneously (e.g., diet and physical activity, smoking cessation and physical activity) (21-23).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adherence to Multiple Cancer Screening Tests among Women Living in Appalachia Ohio

Katz

Reiter

Young

et al. 2015

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is a lack of information about the correlates of completing all three cancer screening tests among women living in Appalachia. Methods Cross-sectional telephone interviews were conducted (April-September 2013) among women (n=637) ages 51-75 from 12 Appalachia Ohio counties. Outcomes of within screening guidelines were verified by medical record. Multivariable logistic regression models identified correlates of being within guidelines for all three cancer screening tests. Results Screening rates were: mammography (32.1%), Pap test (36.1%), and a colorectal cancer test (30.1%). Only 8.6% of women were within guidelines for all tests. Having had a check-up in the past two years and having received a screening recommendation were significantly related to being within guidelines for all three tests (p<0.01). Participants with higher annual household incomes ($60,000+; OR=3.53, 95% CI: 1.49, 8.33) and conditions requiring regular medical visits (OR=3.16, 95% CI: 1.29, 7.74) were more likely to be within guidelines for all three screening tests. Conclusion Less than 10% of women had completed screening within guidelines for all three screening tests. Regular contact with the healthcare system and higher incomes were significant predictors of being within guidelines. Impact Within guidelines rates for the three recommended cancer screening tests is low among women in Appalachia Ohio. This finding illustrates the need for innovative interventions to improve rates of multiple cancer screening tests.

show abstract

Mammography Use in Older Women With Regular Physicians: What are the Predictors?

Cited by 27 publications

References 22 publications

Attitude to Secondary Prevention and Concerns about Colonoscopy Are Independent Predictors of Acceptance of Screening Colonoscopy

Attitude to Secondary Prevention and Concerns about Colonoscopy Are Independent Predictors of Acceptance of Screening Colonoscopy

The impact of screening on future health-promoting behaviours and health beliefs: a systematic review

Adherence to Multiple Cancer Screening Tests among Women Living in Appalachia Ohio

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About