Top

International Journal of Public Health

Published in:

01-06-2010 | Original Article

Socioeconomic status as determinant for participation in mammography screening: assessing the difference between using women’s own versus their partner’s

Authors: Malin Kjellén, My von Euler-Chelpin

Published in: International Journal of Public Health | Issue 3/2010

Abstract

Objectives

Earlier research has shown that participation in mammography screening tends to vary across socioeconomic levels. We assessed the difference between using the woman’s own socioeconomic status (SES) and using that of her household or partner as determinant of participation in mammography screening.

Methods

Participation data from two mammography screening programs in Denmark were linked to a national SES classification system providing data for each citizen, their partner, and household. We calculated the odds ratio of non-participation across SES levels using the woman’s own, the household’s, and her partner’s SES status, respectively.

Results

When using the woman’s own SES, the odds ratio of non-participation showed a clear U-shape across SES levels, in both programs. When using the partner’s SES the difference in non-participation across SES levels was significantly smaller (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

To what extent SES was a determinant for screening participation strongly depended on whether using the woman’s own SES or that of her partner. In a public health perspective it is important to take this into account when addressing the problem of non-attendance in screening.

Banks E, Beral V, Cameron R, Hogg A, Langley N, Barnes I, Bull D, Reeves G, English R, Taylor S, Elliman J, Harris CL (2002) Comparison of various characteristics of women who do and do not attend for breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res 4:R1CrossRefPubMed

Baré ML, Montes J, Florensa R, Sentis M, Donoso L (2003) Factors related to non-participation in a population-based breast cancer screening programme. Eur J Cancer Prev 12:487–494CrossRefPubMed

Blackwell DL, Martinez ME, Gentleman JF (2008) Women’s compliance with public health guidelines for mammograms and pap tests in Canada and the United States: an analysis of data from the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health. Womens Health Issues 18:85–99PubMed

Calle EE, Flanders WD, Thun MJ, Martin LM (1993) Demographic predictors of mammography and Pap smear screening in US women. Am J Public Health 83:53–60PubMed

Dailey AB, Kasl SV, Holford TR, Calvocoressi L, Jones BA (2007) Neighborhood-level socioeconomic predictors of nonadherence to mammography screening guidelines. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16:2293–2303CrossRefPubMed

Denmark in figures (2008) http://www.dst.dk/homeuk/statistics/ofs/Publications/dod.aspx. Accessed 18 Nov 2008

European Commission (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. European Communities

ILO (1983) Bulletin of Labour Statistics, 1983:3. Geneva

Jensen A, Olsen AH, von Euler-Chelpin M, Njor SH, Vejborg I, Lynge E (2005) Do nonattenders in mammography screening programmes seek mammography elsewhere? Int J Cancer 113:464–470CrossRefPubMed

Katz SJ, Zemencuk JK, Hofer TP (2000) Breast cancer screening in the United States and Canada, 1994: socioeconomic gradients persist. Am J Public Health 90:799–803CrossRefPubMed

Krieger N (1991) Women and social class: a methodological study comparing individual, household, and census measures as predictors of black/white differences in reproductive history. J Epidemiol Community Health 45:35–42CrossRefPubMed

Krieger N, Williams DR, Moss NE (1997) Measuring social class in US public health research: concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annu Rev Public Health 18:341–378CrossRefPubMed

Krieger N, Chen JT, Selby JV (1999) Comparing individual-based and household-based measures of social class to assess class inequalities in women’s health: a methodological study of 684 US women. J Epidemiol Community Health 53:612–623CrossRefPubMed

Lagerlund M, Sparén P, Thurfjell E, Ekbom A, Lambe M (2000) Predictors of non-attendance in a population-based mammography screening programme: socio-demographic factors and aspects of health behaviour. Eur J Cancer Prev 9:25–33CrossRefPubMed

Lagerlund M, Maxwell AE, Bastani R, Thurfjell E, Ekbom A, Lamble M (2002) Sociodemographic predictors of non-attendance at invitational mammography screening—a population based register study (Sweden). Cancer Causes Control 13:73–82CrossRefPubMed

Luengo-Matos S, Polo-Santos M, Saz-Parkinson Z (2006) Mammography use and factors associated with its use after the introduction of breast cancer screening programmes in Spain. Eur J Cancer Prev 15:242–248CrossRefPubMed

Maheswaran R, Pearson T, Jordan H, Black D (2006) Socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, location of service, and uptake of breast cancer screening in North Derbyshire, UK. J Epidemiol Community Health 60:208–212CrossRefPubMed

Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjöld B, Rutqvist L-E (2002) Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 359:909–919CrossRefPubMed

Office for National Statistics (2009) http://www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/classifications/current/ns-sec/household-level/index.html. Accessed 17 March 2009

Olsen AH, Njor SH, Vejborg I, Schwartz W, Dalgaard P, Jensen MB, Brix Tange U, Blichert-Toft M, Rank F, Mouridsen H, Lynge E (2005) Breast cancer mortality in Copenhagen after introduction of mammography screening: cohort study. BMJ 330:220CrossRefPubMed

Osler M, Prescott E, Gronbaek M, Christensen U, Due P, Engholm G (2002) Income inequality, individual income, and mortality in Danish adults: analysis of pooled data from two cohort studies. BMJ 324:13–16CrossRefPubMed

Paci E, Ponti A, Zappa M, Patriarca S, Falini P, Delmastro G, Bianchi S, Sapino A, Vezzosi V, Senore C, Crocetti E, Frigerio A, Zanetti R, Roselli del Turco M, Segnan N (2005) Early diagnosis, not differential treatment, explains better survival in service screening. Eur J Cancer 41:2728–2734CrossRefPubMed

Parvinen I, Helenius H, Pylkkänen L, Anttila A, Immonen-Räihä P, Kauhava L, Räsänen O, Klemi PJ (2006) Service screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality among elderly women in Turku. J Med Screen 13:34–40CrossRefPubMed

Statistics Denmark (2008a) http://www.dst.dk/HomeUK/Guide/documentation/Varedeklarationer/emnegruppe/emne.aspx?sysrid=000848. Accessed 3 Oct 2008

Statistics Denmark (2008b) http://www.dst.dk/publikation.aspx?cid=4799. Accessed 3 Oct 2008

Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HHT, Smith RA, Duffy SW (2003) Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet 361:1405–1410CrossRefPubMed

Törnberg S, Kemetli L, Svane G, Rosén M, Stenbeck M, Nyström L (2005) Pattern of participation in a cohort aged 50–60 years at first invitation to the service-screening programme with mammography in Stockholm county, Sweden. Prev Med 41:728–733CrossRefPubMed

van der Pol M, Cairns J (2001) Assessing the resource implications of extending routine invitation to breast screening to women aged 65–67 years. Eur J Cancer 37:1790–1796CrossRefPubMed

von Euler-Chelpin M, Olsen AH, Njor S, Vejborg I, Schwartz W, Lynge E (2006) Women’s patterns of participation in mammography screening in Denmark. Eur J Epidemiol 21:203–209CrossRef

von Euler-Chelpin M, Olsen AH, Njor S, Vejborg I, Schwartz W, Lynge E (2008) Socio-demographic determinants of participation in mammography screening. Int J Cancer 122:418–423CrossRef

Willis K (2008) “I come because I am called”: recruitment and participation in mammography screening in Uppsala, Sweden. Health Care Women Int 29:135–150CrossRefPubMed

Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Manjer J, Janzon L (2004) Non-attendance in breast cancer screening is associated with unfavourable socio-economic circumstances and advanced carcinoma. Int J Cancer 108:754–760CrossRefPubMed

Zackrisson S, Lindstrom M, Moghaddassi M, Andersson I, Janzon L (2007) Social predictors of non-attendance in an urban mammographic screening programme: a multilevel analysis. Scand J Public Health 35:548–554CrossRefPubMed

Title: Socioeconomic status as determinant for participation in mammography screening: assessing the difference between using women’s own versus their partner’s
Authors: Malin Kjellén
My von Euler-Chelpin
Publication date: 01-06-2010
Publisher: SP Birkhäuser Verlag Basel
Published in: International Journal of Public Health / Issue 3/2010
Print ISSN: 1661-8556
Electronic ISSN: 1661-8564
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-010-0137-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Socioeconomic status as determinant for participation in mammography screening: assessing the difference between using women’s own versus their partner’s

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2010

The attitude toward tobacco dependence and barriers to discussing smoking cessation: a survey among Turkish general practitioners

Differences in tobacco use between Canada and the United States

Housing and health promotion: moving forward

Examining the association between socioeconomic position and body mass index in 1978 and 2005 among Canadian working-age women and men

Obesity increase among low SES Australian schoolchildren between 2000 and 2006: time for preventive interventions to target children from low income schools?

Effects of time-varying exposures adjusting for time-varying confounders: the case of alcohol consumption and risk of incident human immunodeficiency virus infection