Measuring height and weight as part of routine mammographic screening for breast cancer

Darcey, Ellie; Ambati, Ravi; Lund, Helen; Redfern, Andrew; Saunders, Christobel; Thompson, Sandra C.; Wylie, Elizabeth; Stone, Jennifer

doi:10.1177/0969141319860873

Cited by 3 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on reduced rescreening rates are apparent but did not appear to differ for women of differing BMI categories. Crude rescreening rates for women who did not provide height and weight information were consistent with women with a BMI >25 kg/m 2 which is consistent with our previous finding that women who did not provide height and weight were more likely to have larger breasts 11 . Crude rescreening rates also appear to be relatively lower for women with BMI <18 kg/m 2 screening for the first or second time, suggesting that screening barriers related to body image are likely to exist at opposing ends of the BMI spectrum.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Crude rescreening rates for women who did not provide height and weight information were consistent with women with a BMI >25 kg/m 2 which is consistent with our previous finding that women who did not provide height and weight were more likely to have larger breasts. 11 Crude rescreening rates also appear to be relatively lower for women with BMI <18 kg/m 2 screening for the first or second time, suggesting that screening barriers related to body image are likely to exist at opposing ends of the BMI spectrum. However, the number of screening events in these subgroups is relatively small and therefore, the rates are not as precise as the other estimates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…16 Despite this, height and weight information is not routinely collected as part of breast cancer screening programs in Australia or internationally. Previous work has demonstrated that it is feasible to expand the core data collected by BreastScreen programs to include height and weight 11 but for screening to be effective, women must attend routinely and screening programs need to demonstrate consistent high rescreening performance. By comparing rescreening rates to previous reporting periods, this study now demonstrates that the act of asking women their height and weight at the time of mammography did not deter them from rescreening.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For investigations examining the association between BMI and the likelihood of rescreening (henceforth, Aim 2), erroneous height and weight measurements due to faulty scales were excluded as previously reported 11 . The location of the faulty scales were random and unlikely to systematically bias the results.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2016, BreastScreen WA assessed the feasibility of measuring height and weight at the time of mammography by installing height and weight measuring stations in each of the mammography rooms across WA. Uptake was high, with 77% of clients agreeing to height and weight measurements over a 2‐year period 11 . In 2018, BreastScreen WA made the decision to collect self‐reported height and weight at the time of mammography, enabling prospectively investigations of BMI associations with rescreening rates and other critical breast cancer screening outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The impact of height and weight on rescreening rates within a population‐based breast screening program

Pirikahu,

Darcey,

Lund

et al. 2024

Cancer Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionWomen with obesity are at increased risk of post‐menopausal breast cancer and less likely to participate in breast screening. This study investigates the impact of asking women their height and weight within a population‐based screening program, and the association of BMI with rescreening status.MethodsData regarding 666,130 screening events from 318,198 women aged 50–74 attending BreastScreen Western Australia between 2016 and 2021 were used to compare crude and age‐standardised rescreening rates over time. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to investigate associations of BMI with rescreening status.ResultsRescreening rates for women screened since 2016 were within 1.8% points from the previous reporting period, stratified by screening round. Increasing BMI was associated with decreased likelihood of returning to breast screening (OR = 0.993, 95% CI: 0.988–0.998; OR = 0.989, 95% CI: 0.984–0.994; OR = 0.985, 95% CI: 0.982–0.987 for women screening for the first, second and third+ time, respectively).ConclusionsThis large, prospective study supports implementation of routine height and weight collection within breast screening programs. It shows that asking women their height and weight does not deter them from returning to screening and that women with increased BMI are less likely to rescreen, highlighting a need for targeted interventions to improve screening barriers for women living with obesity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The impact of height and weight on rescreening rates within a population‐based breast screening program

Pirikahu,

Darcey,

Lund

et al. 2024

Cancer Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A novel approach to increasing community capacity for weight management a volunteer-delivered programme (ActWELL) initiated within breast screening clinics: a randomised controlled trial

Anderson

Chong

Craigie

et al. 2021

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background It is estimated that around 30% of breast cancers in post-menopausal women are related to lifestyle. The breast cancer-pooling project demonstrated that sustained weight loss of 2 to 4.5 kg is associated with an 18% lower risk of breast cancer, highlighting the importance of small changes in body weight. Our study aimed to assess the effectiveness a volunteer-delivered, community based, weight management programme (ActWELL) for women with a BMI > 25 kg/m2 attending NHS Scotland Breast Screening clinics. Methods A multicentre, 1:1 parallel group, randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 560 women aged 50 to 70 years with BMI > 25 kg/m2. On completion of baseline measures, all participants received a breast cancer prevention leaflet. Intervention group participants received the ActWELL intervention which focussed on personalised diet advice and pedometer walking plans. The programme was delivered in leisure centres by (the charity) Breast Cancer Now volunteer coaches. Primary outcomes were changes between groups at 12 months in body weight (kg) and physical activity (accelerometer measured step count). Results Two hundred seventy-nine women were allocated to the intervention group and 281 to the comparison group. Twelve-month data were available from 240 (81%) intervention and 227 (85%) comparison group participants. Coaches delivered 523 coaching sessions and 1915 support calls to 279 intervention participants. Mean weight change was − 2.5 kg (95% CI − 3.1 to − 1.9) in the intervention group and − 1.2 kg (− 1.8 to 0.6) in the comparison group. The adjusted mean difference was − 1.3 kg (95% CI − 2.2 to − 0.4, P = 0.003). The odds ratio for losing 5% weight was 2.20 (95% CI 1.4 to 3.4, p = 0.0005) in favour of the intervention. The adjusted mean difference in step counts between groups was 483 steps/day (95% CI − 635 to 1602) (NS). Conclusions A community weight management intervention initiated at breast screening clinics and delivered by volunteer coaches doubled the likelihood of clinically significant weight loss at 12 months (compared with usual care) offering significant potential to decrease breast cancer risk. Trial registration Database of registration: ISCRTN. Registration number:11057518. Date trial registered:21.07.2017. Date of enrolment of first participant: 01.09.2017.

show abstract

A Systematic Review to Evaluate the Barriers to Breast Cancer Screening in Women with Disability

Almohammed

2024

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Breast cancer (BC) is one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide. There are observed disparities in patients with disability as compared to those without disability, which leads to poor BC screening attendance, thereby worsening disease management. Aim: The aim of this systematic review is to investigate if there are disparities in screening rates in women with disability as compared to those without disability, as well as the different factors that pose barriers to patients with disability for enrolment in BC screening programs. Method: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically reviewed published articles between 2008 and 2023, which assessed different factors that contributed to poor attendance in BC screening programs held across different countries. Detailed study characteristics were obtained, and methodological quality assessment was performed on the individual studies included in this review. Result: A total of fifty-three articles were identified as eligible studies based on the pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These included 7,252,913 patients diagnosed with BC (913,902 patients with disability/6,339,011 patients without disability). The results revealed there are demographic, clinical, financial, and service-related barriers that contributed to lower screening rates in disabled patients as compared to non-disabled. Patient age is the most common factor, with the highest effect observed for 80 years (vs. 30–44 years) [odds ratio (OR) = 13.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 8.27–23.47), p < 0.0001], followed by race/ethnicity for Hispanic (vs. non-Hispanic white) [OR = 9.5 (95%CI = 1.0–91.9), p < 0.05]. Additionally, patients with multiple disabilities had the highest rate of dropouts [OR = 27.4 (95%CI = 21.5–33.3)]. Other factors like education, income, marital status, and insurance coverage were essential barriers in screening programs. Conclusions: This study presents a holistic view of all barriers to poor BC screening attendance in disabled patients, thereby exacerbating health inequalities. A standardized approach to overcome the identified barriers and the need for a tailored guideline, especially for disability groups, is inevitable.

show abstract

Measuring height and weight as part of routine mammographic screening for breast cancer

Cited by 3 publications

References 11 publications

The impact of height and weight on rescreening rates within a population‐based breast screening program

The impact of height and weight on rescreening rates within a population‐based breast screening program

A novel approach to increasing community capacity for weight management a volunteer-delivered programme (ActWELL) initiated within breast screening clinics: a randomised controlled trial

A Systematic Review to Evaluate the Barriers to Breast Cancer Screening in Women with Disability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About