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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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:R1
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 12:487–494
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 18:85–99
Calle EE, Flanders WD, Thun MJ, Martin LM (1993) Demographic predictors of mammography and Pap smear screening in US women. Am J Public Health 83:53–60
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 16:2293–2303
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 113:464–470
Katz SJ, Zemencuk JK, Hofer TP (2000) Breast cancer screening in the United States and Canada, 1994: socioeconomic gradients persist. Am J Public Health 90:799–803
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 45:35–42
Krieger N, Williams DR, Moss NE (1997) Measuring social class in US public health research: concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annu Rev Public Health 18:341–378
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 53:612–623
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 9:25–33
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 13:73–82
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 15:242–248
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 60:208–212
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 359:909–919
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 330:220
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 324:13–16
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 41:2728–2734
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 13:34–40
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 361:1405–1410
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 41:728–733
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 37:1790–1796
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 21:203–209
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 122:418–423
Willis K (2008) “I come because I am called”: recruitment and participation in mammography screening in Uppsala, Sweden. Health Care Women Int 29:135–150
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 108:754–760
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 35:548–554
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Danish Cancer Society.
Conflict of interest statement
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kjellén, M., von Euler-Chelpin, M. Socioeconomic status as determinant for participation in mammography screening: assessing the difference between using women’s own versus their partner’s. Int J Public Health 55, 209–215 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-010-0137-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-010-0137-4