Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Satisfaction, discomfort, obligations, and concerns in population-based breast cancer screening: cross-sectional study in a Danish population

Authors: Pernille Gabel, Mette Bach Larsen, Pernille Bjørnholt Nielsen, Dorte Brandt Svendstrup, Berit Andersen

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Potential barriers to breast cancer screening adherence include patient satisfaction, as well as pain, feeling obliged to participate, and other concerns that might compromise the level of satisfaction.
The present study aimed to assess the overall satisfaction of Danish citizens with their breast cancer screening experiences, as well as their level of discomfort, concerns, and feelings of obligation to participate. Furthermore, we analyzed the associations between overall satisfaction and the remaining outcomes.

Methods

Questionnaires were mailed to 3000 women in the Central Denmark Region who received screening examination results in the fall of 2013. The questionnaire assessed satisfaction (overall, telephone hot-line, and web-based self-service), discomfort (pain and boundaries of modesty), concerns (at invitation, while waiting for results, and after receiving results), and feelings of obligation to participate. Background information was retrieved from Statistics Denmark.
Pearson’s chi-square test was used to test differences in outcomes and demographic characteristic distributions between respondents and non-respondents and highly satisfied vs. less satisfied participants. Prevalence ratios (PR) with 95% CI were assessed using Poisson regression with robust variance, to estimate associations between satisfaction and the remaining outcomes.

Results

Among the participants, 70.3% and 29.4%, respectively, reported really good and good impressions of the screening program. Lower satisfaction was associated with feeling pain (prevalence ratio (PR), 0.82), feeling that modesty boundaries were transgressed (PR, 0.79), experiencing screening-induced concerns (PR, 0.84), and feeling obliged to participate (PR, 0.96). Of the participants, 36.2% and 12.9%, respectively, felt very much and moderately obliged to participate. A total of 72.6% reported no screening-induced concerns, including 73.3% of those with negative screening results and 38.1% of those with positive screening results.

Conclusions

Overall satisfaction with breast cancer screening was very high, but discomfort, feelings of obligation, and concerns were associated with lower satisfaction levels. A continuing focus on high service in breast cancer screening is important for achieving the highest benefit from the program. This includes initiatives to employ the least painful techniques, to respect the patients’ modesty as much as possible, and to deliver fast screening results and thus minimize concerns among women awaiting results.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference DeSantis CE, Bray F, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Anderson BO, Jemal A. International variation in female breast cancer incidence and mortality rates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2015;24(10):1495–506.CrossRef DeSantis CE, Bray F, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Anderson BO, Jemal A. International variation in female breast cancer incidence and mortality rates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2015;24(10):1495–506.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Torring ML, Frydenberg M, Hansen RP, Olesen F, Vedsted P. Evidence of increasing mortality with longer diagnostic intervals for five common cancers: a cohort study in primary care. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(9):2187–98.CrossRefPubMed Torring ML, Frydenberg M, Hansen RP, Olesen F, Vedsted P. Evidence of increasing mortality with longer diagnostic intervals for five common cancers: a cohort study in primary care. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(9):2187–98.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380(9855):1778–86.CrossRef Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380(9855):1778–86.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Brodersen J, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. The benefits and harms of screening for cancer with a focus on breast screening. Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2010;120(3):89–94.PubMed Brodersen J, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. The benefits and harms of screening for cancer with a focus on breast screening. Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2010;120(3):89–94.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen HH, Holmqvist M, Yen MF, Abdsalah S, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer. 2002;95(3):458–69.CrossRefPubMed Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen HH, Holmqvist M, Yen MF, Abdsalah S, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer. 2002;95(3):458–69.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Breast Screening Frequency Trial Group. The frequency of breast cancer screening: results from the UKCCCR randomised trial. United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38(11):1458–64.CrossRef Breast Screening Frequency Trial Group. The frequency of breast cancer screening: results from the UKCCCR randomised trial. United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38(11):1458–64.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Peipins LA, Shapiro JA, Bobo JK, Berkowitz Z. Impact of women's experiences during mammography on adherence to rescreening (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2006;17(4):439–47.CrossRefPubMed Peipins LA, Shapiro JA, Bobo JK, Berkowitz Z. Impact of women's experiences during mammography on adherence to rescreening (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2006;17(4):439–47.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Tang TS, Patterson SK, Roubidoux MA, Duan L. Women's mammography experience and its impact on screening adherence. Psychooncology. 2009;18(7):727–34.CrossRefPubMed Tang TS, Patterson SK, Roubidoux MA, Duan L. Women's mammography experience and its impact on screening adherence. Psychooncology. 2009;18(7):727–34.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Vejborg I, Mikkelsen E, Garne JP, Bak M, Lernevall A, Mogensen NB, et al. Mammography screening in Denmark. Dan Med Bull. 2011;58(6):C4287.PubMed Vejborg I, Mikkelsen E, Garne JP, Bak M, Lernevall A, Mogensen NB, et al. Mammography screening in Denmark. Dan Med Bull. 2011;58(6):C4287.PubMed
13.
go back to reference Ploug T, Holm S, Brodersen J. To nudge or not to nudge: cancer screening programmes and the limits of libertarian paternalism. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(12):1193–6. Ploug T, Holm S, Brodersen J. To nudge or not to nudge: cancer screening programmes and the limits of libertarian paternalism. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(12):1193–6.
14.
go back to reference Statistics Denmark. Population in Denmark and the Central Denmark region, October 1st 2013 [available in English]. 2016; Available at: www.statistikbanken.dk. Accessed 20 Apr 2016. Statistics Denmark. Population in Denmark and the Central Denmark region, October 1st 2013 [available in English]. 2016; Available at: www.​statistikbanken.​dk. Accessed 20 Apr 2016.
15.
go back to reference Jensen LF, Pedersen AF, Andersen B, Fenger-Gron M, Vedsted P. Distance to screening site and non-participation in screening for breast cancer: a population-based study. J Public Health (Oxf). 2014;36(2):292–9.CrossRef Jensen LF, Pedersen AF, Andersen B, Fenger-Gron M, Vedsted P. Distance to screening site and non-participation in screening for breast cancer: a population-based study. J Public Health (Oxf). 2014;36(2):292–9.CrossRef
16.
18.
go back to reference Statistics Denmark. The division of research services, statistics Denmark [available in English]. 2016; Available at: www.dst.dk. Accessed 25 Apr 2016. Statistics Denmark. The division of research services, statistics Denmark [available in English]. 2016; Available at: www.​dst.​dk. Accessed 25 Apr 2016.
20.
go back to reference Mohamed B, Azizan NA. Perceived service quality's effect on patient satisfaction and behavioural compliance. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2015;28(3):300–14.CrossRefPubMed Mohamed B, Azizan NA. Perceived service quality's effect on patient satisfaction and behavioural compliance. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2015;28(3):300–14.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Almog R, Hagoel L, Tamir A, Barnett O, Rennert G. Quality control in a National Program for the early detection of breast cancer: women's satisfaction with the mammography process. Womens Health Issues. 2008;18(2):110–7.CrossRefPubMed Almog R, Hagoel L, Tamir A, Barnett O, Rennert G. Quality control in a National Program for the early detection of breast cancer: women's satisfaction with the mammography process. Womens Health Issues. 2008;18(2):110–7.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(7):702–6.CrossRefPubMed Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(7):702–6.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Barros AJ, Hirakata VN. Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies: an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Barros AJ, Hirakata VN. Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies: an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Statistics Denmark. Population and divorces in Denmark, 2013; STATBANK Denmark, Statistics Denmark [Available in English]. 2015; Available at: www.statistikbanken.dk. Accessed 11 Dec 2015. Statistics Denmark. Population and divorces in Denmark, 2013; STATBANK Denmark, Statistics Denmark [Available in English]. 2015; Available at: www.​statistikbanken.​dk. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
26.
go back to reference Saladie F, Poblet C, Sirgo A, Galceran J. Women's satisfaction with the breast cancer screening programme in Tarragona, Spain. Breast J. 2008;14(3):315–6.CrossRefPubMed Saladie F, Poblet C, Sirgo A, Galceran J. Women's satisfaction with the breast cancer screening programme in Tarragona, Spain. Breast J. 2008;14(3):315–6.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Han MA, Jun JK, Choi KS, Park EC, Lee HY. Satisfaction in the National Cancer Screening Program for breast cancer with and without clinical breast examination. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(1):63–7.CrossRefPubMed Han MA, Jun JK, Choi KS, Park EC, Lee HY. Satisfaction in the National Cancer Screening Program for breast cancer with and without clinical breast examination. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(1):63–7.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Public Health and Quality Improvement. Screening for breast cancer - satisfaction in the breast cancer screening programme in the Central Denmark Region 2010–2013 [Danish]. 2014. [Available in Danish at http://www.defactum.dk/]. Public Health and Quality Improvement. Screening for breast cancer - satisfaction in the breast cancer screening programme in the Central Denmark Region 2010–2013 [Danish]. 2014. [Available in Danish at http://​www.​defactum.​dk/​].
30.
go back to reference Brotherton J, Taylor R, Ivanov O, Tewson R, Page A. “It’s much easier than going to the dentist”: high levels of satisfaction in a mammography screening program. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2007;31(4):353–9.CrossRefPubMed Brotherton J, Taylor R, Ivanov O, Tewson R, Page A. “It’s much easier than going to the dentist”: high levels of satisfaction in a mammography screening program. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2007;31(4):353–9.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Rutter DR, Calnan M, Vaile MS, Field S, Wade KA. Discomfort and pain during mammography: description, prediction, and prevention. BMJ. 1992;305(6851):443–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rutter DR, Calnan M, Vaile MS, Field S, Wade KA. Discomfort and pain during mammography: description, prediction, and prevention. BMJ. 1992;305(6851):443–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Brunton M, Jordan C, Campbell I. Anxiety before, during, and after participation in a population-based screening mammography programme in Waikato Province, New Zealand. N Z Med J. 2005;118(1209):U1299.PubMed Brunton M, Jordan C, Campbell I. Anxiety before, during, and after participation in a population-based screening mammography programme in Waikato Province, New Zealand. N Z Med J. 2005;118(1209):U1299.PubMed
33.
go back to reference Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, Boyce A, Jepson C, Engstrom PF. Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114(8):657–61.CrossRefPubMed Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, Boyce A, Jepson C, Engstrom PF. Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114(8):657–61.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Satisfaction, discomfort, obligations, and concerns in population-based breast cancer screening: cross-sectional study in a Danish population
Authors
Pernille Gabel
Mette Bach Larsen
Pernille Bjørnholt Nielsen
Dorte Brandt Svendstrup
Berit Andersen
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2438-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Health Services Research 1/2017 Go to the issue