Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Journal for Equity in Health 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Effect of an organised screening program on socioeconomic inequalities in mammography practice, knowledge and attitudes

Authors: A. Relecom, B. Arzel, T. Perneger

Published in: International Journal for Equity in Health | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Breast cancer stands as the leading cause of cancer related mortality in women worldwide. Mammography screening has the potential to improve prognosis by reducing stage at diagnosis. Socioeconomic inequalities in mammography cancer screening have been widely reported. The influence of organised programs on socioeconomic disparities regarding mammography screening is to date unclear. We aimed to investigate the impact of an organised regional screening program on socioeconomic inequalities in terms of the uptake, knowledge and attitudes towards mammography screening.

Methods

Data were obtained from two cross-sectional surveys of women 50 to 69 years old conducted in 1998 and 2012, before and after the implementation of an organised breast cancer screening program in Geneva, Switzerland. Socioeconomic status was measured by monthly household income and education level. Logistic and linear regression multivariable models were used to investigate the evolution of socioeconomic gradients between 1998 and 2012 in terms of uptake, knowledge and attitudes towards mammography screening.

Results

In 1998, before the implementation of an organised screening program, 44% of women from the lowest education category reported mammography practice conforming to recommendations versus 63% of the more educated participants. This socioeconomic gradient was no longer present in 2012 where reported mammography practice at guideline-recommended frequency were 83 and 82% in the lowest and highest education level categories respectively (change in education gradient over time, p = 0.018). The difference in mammography practice in agreement with recommendations between the lowest and the highest income category went from 27 percentage points in 1998 to 14 percentage points in 2012 (change in income gradient over time, p = 0.10). The socioeconomic gradient in negative attitudes towards mammography screening persisted in 2012 but was reduced compared to 1998. We did not observe a reduction in the socioeconomic disparities in knowledge regarding mammography screening over this period.

Conclusions

This study suggests that mammography screening programs may lessen socioeconomic inequities in mammography practice. Such programs should feature adapted communication tools to reach women of lower socioeconomic status to attempt to further reduce socioeconomic gradients in mammography screening.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:1–81. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:1–81.
3.
go back to reference Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SJ, Wilcox M, et al. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778–86.CrossRef Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SJ, Wilcox M, et al. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778–86.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bulliard JL, Ducros C, Jemelin C, Arzel B, Fioretta G, Levi F. Effectiveness of organised versus opportunistic mammography screening. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1199–202.CrossRefPubMed Bulliard JL, Ducros C, Jemelin C, Arzel B, Fioretta G, Levi F. Effectiveness of organised versus opportunistic mammography screening. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1199–202.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Welch H, Prorok P, O’Malley KB. Breast-Cancer tumor size, Overdiagnosis and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1438.47. Welch H, Prorok P, O’Malley KB. Breast-Cancer tumor size, Overdiagnosis and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1438.47.
7.
go back to reference Bradley CJ, Given CW, Roberts C. Race, socioeconomic status, and breast cancer treatment and survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(7):490–6.CrossRefPubMed Bradley CJ, Given CW, Roberts C. Race, socioeconomic status, and breast cancer treatment and survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(7):490–6.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Xue Qin Y. Socioeconomic disparities in breast cancer survival: relation to stage at diagnosis, treatment and race. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:364.CrossRef Xue Qin Y. Socioeconomic disparities in breast cancer survival: relation to stage at diagnosis, treatment and race. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:364.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lundqvist A, Andersson E, Ahlberg I, Nilbert M, Gerdtham U. Socioeconomic inequalities in breast cancer incidence and mortality in Europe—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pub Health. 2016;26(5):804–13.CrossRef Lundqvist A, Andersson E, Ahlberg I, Nilbert M, Gerdtham U. Socioeconomic inequalities in breast cancer incidence and mortality in Europe—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pub Health. 2016;26(5):804–13.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Woods LM, Rachet B, Coleman MP. Origins of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival: a review. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:5–19.CrossRefPubMed Woods LM, Rachet B, Coleman MP. Origins of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival: a review. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:5–19.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Aarts MJ, Voogd AC, Duijm LEM, Coebergh JW, Louwman WJ. Socioeconomic inequalities in attending mass screening for breast cancer in the south of Netherlands-associations with stage at diagnosis and survival. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;128:517–25.CrossRefPubMed Aarts MJ, Voogd AC, Duijm LEM, Coebergh JW, Louwman WJ. Socioeconomic inequalities in attending mass screening for breast cancer in the south of Netherlands-associations with stage at diagnosis and survival. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;128:517–25.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Spadea T, Bellini S, Kunst A, Stirbu I, Costa G. The impact of interventions to improve attendance in female cancer screening among lower socioeconomic groups: a review. Prev Med. 2010;50:159–64.CrossRefPubMed Spadea T, Bellini S, Kunst A, Stirbu I, Costa G. The impact of interventions to improve attendance in female cancer screening among lower socioeconomic groups: a review. Prev Med. 2010;50:159–64.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Achat H, Close G, Taylor R. Who has regular mammograms? Effects of knowledge, beliefs, socioeconomic status, and health-related factors. Prev Med. 2005;41:312–20.CrossRefPubMed Achat H, Close G, Taylor R. Who has regular mammograms? Effects of knowledge, beliefs, socioeconomic status, and health-related factors. Prev Med. 2005;41:312–20.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Chamot E, Charvet AI, Perneger T. Predicting stages of adoption of mammography screening in a general population. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:1869–77.CrossRefPubMed Chamot E, Charvet AI, Perneger T. Predicting stages of adoption of mammography screening in a general population. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:1869–77.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Chamot E, Perneger T. Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55:799–803.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chamot E, Perneger T. Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55:799–803.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Rakowski W, Dube CA, Goldstein MG. Considerations for extending the transtheoretical model model of behavior change to screening mammography. Health Educ Res. 2006;11:77–96.CrossRef Rakowski W, Dube CA, Goldstein MG. Considerations for extending the transtheoretical model model of behavior change to screening mammography. Health Educ Res. 2006;11:77–96.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Rakowski W, Andersen MR, Stoddard AM, Urban N, Rimer BK, Lane DS, et al. Confirmatory analysis of opinions regarding the pros and cons of mammography. Health Psychol. 2007;16:433–41.CrossRef Rakowski W, Andersen MR, Stoddard AM, Urban N, Rimer BK, Lane DS, et al. Confirmatory analysis of opinions regarding the pros and cons of mammography. Health Psychol. 2007;16:433–41.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Palència L, Espelt A, Rodriguez-Sanz M, Puigpinòs R, Pons-Vigués M, Pasarin MI, et al. Socio-economic inequalities in breast and cervical cancer screening practices in Europe: influence of the type of screening program. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39:757–65.CrossRefPubMed Palència L, Espelt A, Rodriguez-Sanz M, Puigpinòs R, Pons-Vigués M, Pasarin MI, et al. Socio-economic inequalities in breast and cervical cancer screening practices in Europe: influence of the type of screening program. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39:757–65.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Espinas JA, Aliste L, Fernandez E, Argimon JM, Tresserras R, Borras JM. Narrowing the equity gap: the impact of organized versus opportunistic cancer screening in Catalonia (Spain). J Med Screen. 2011;18:87–90.CrossRefPubMed Espinas JA, Aliste L, Fernandez E, Argimon JM, Tresserras R, Borras JM. Narrowing the equity gap: the impact of organized versus opportunistic cancer screening in Catalonia (Spain). J Med Screen. 2011;18:87–90.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Puliti D, Miccinesi G, Manneschi G, Caranci N, Di Felice E, Stivanello E, et al. Does an organized screening programme reduce the inequalities in breast cancer survival? Ann Oncol. 2012;23:319–23.CrossRefPubMed Puliti D, Miccinesi G, Manneschi G, Caranci N, Di Felice E, Stivanello E, et al. Does an organized screening programme reduce the inequalities in breast cancer survival? Ann Oncol. 2012;23:319–23.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Puddu M, Demarest S, Tafforeau J. Does a national screening programme reduce socioeconomic inequalities in mammography use? Int J Public Health. 2009;54:61–8.CrossRefPubMed Puddu M, Demarest S, Tafforeau J. Does a national screening programme reduce socioeconomic inequalities in mammography use? Int J Public Health. 2009;54:61–8.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Victora CG, Vaughan JP, Barros FC, Silva AC, tomasi E. Explaining trends in inequities: evidence from Brazilian child health studies. Lancet. 2000;356:1093–8.CrossRefPubMed Victora CG, Vaughan JP, Barros FC, Silva AC, tomasi E. Explaining trends in inequities: evidence from Brazilian child health studies. Lancet. 2000;356:1093–8.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Chamot E, Perneger TV. The gynecologists’ role in mammography screening in absence of a public health program. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2003;268(2):88–93.PubMed Chamot E, Perneger TV. The gynecologists’ role in mammography screening in absence of a public health program. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2003;268(2):88–93.PubMed
24.
go back to reference Schueler KM, Chu PW, Smith-Bindman R. Factors associated with mammography utilization: a systematic and quantitative review of the literature. J Women's Health. 2008;17:1477–99.CrossRef Schueler KM, Chu PW, Smith-Bindman R. Factors associated with mammography utilization: a systematic and quantitative review of the literature. J Women's Health. 2008;17:1477–99.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Rauscher GH, Johnson TP, Cho YI, Walk JA. Accuracy of self reported Cancer-screening histories: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2008;17:748–57. Rauscher GH, Johnson TP, Cho YI, Walk JA. Accuracy of self reported Cancer-screening histories: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2008;17:748–57.
Metadata
Title
Effect of an organised screening program on socioeconomic inequalities in mammography practice, knowledge and attitudes
Authors
A. Relecom
B. Arzel
T. Perneger
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1475-9276
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-018-0811-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

International Journal for Equity in Health 1/2018 Go to the issue