2010
DOI: 10.1258/jms.2010.009091
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Randomized Controlled Trial of Mammographic Screening from Age 40 (‘age’ Trial): Patterns of Screening Attendance

Abstract: Uptake in this trial was comparable with that in the UK screening programme for women aged over 50. There was an inverse relationship between deprivation level and the number of screens attended.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0
2

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
1
16
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In the Age trial, as has been reported for the NHSBSP (29); (30), there was an inverse relationship between screening attendance and socio-economic status (31). Since the number of attendances will influence whether a woman ever receives a false-positive result in her cumulative screening history, the effect of deprivation was examined in this study for the regular attenders only.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…In the Age trial, as has been reported for the NHSBSP (29); (30), there was an inverse relationship between screening attendance and socio-economic status (31). Since the number of attendances will influence whether a woman ever receives a false-positive result in her cumulative screening history, the effect of deprivation was examined in this study for the regular attenders only.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…When restricted to deaths due to breast cancers diagnosed in the intervention phase, the RR was 0·88 (95% CI 0·74−1·04). The absolute mortality reduction in the intervention group was 0·03 per 1000 women-years or 0·47 per 1000 women, equivalent to a number needed to invite of 2108, or number needed to screen of 1366 (based on the average uptake of 65% 14 ). Figure 2 shows cumulative breast cancer mortality for this analysis estimated by the Nelson-Aalen method.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, by the seventh screening round less than 55% of women in the intervention group were actually screened. 14 The reported eff ect at later follow-up will therefore be less than would be observed with population screening.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…This is in contrast to the published literature where a low socio-economic status is identified as a barrier to screening. (4,14,22) However it is possible that rather than failing to attend breast screening, those women in the least disadvantaged groups are opting to screen privately. Not only are these least disadvantaged women more likely to be able to afford and therefore access private screening, they are also more likely to be working and therefore look for the convenience of a private clinic.…”
Section: Influence Of Other Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%