Skip to main content
Log in

Two distinct groups of non-attenders in an organized mammography screening program

  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective. To find out reasons for non-attendance and to study subgroup differences of the non-attenders in an organized mammography screening program.

Design. Prospective for background and psychosocial factors, retrospective for reasons of non-attendance.

Setting. Finnish screening based on personal first round invitations, with 89% attendance rate.

Participants. Four hundred thirty six women with both pre-screening response to socioeconomic and psychosocial measures, and post-screening response reporting reasons of non-attendance.

Main results. Most common single reason for non-attendance was previous recent mammogram (53%), but also reasons related to practical obstacles, worry and fear, knowledge and attitudes, and organization of screening were mentioned. Two distinct groups of non-attenders were found based on the reasons for non-attendance. Those who did not attend because a mammogram taken elsewhere (ELSE, n = 233) were urban, well-to-do women, who took care of their health by own initiation and felt more susceptible to breast cancer, and also expected mammogram to be painful. Other (real) non-attenders (REAL, n = 155) were less compliant with health recommendations and services, more socially isolated, depressed and anxious than ELSE. Level of depression among REAL was clearly higher (10.80) than the mean value (7.91, SD = 7.28) of the age group, and was also slightly above the cut-off score of 10 indicating mild or moderate depression. Trait anxiety was also markedly higher (40.18) than that of the same age group (37.76, SD = 8.95).

Conclusions. Further research should clarify determinants and consequences of depression and anxiety among real non-attenders. Knowledge gaps and attitudinal barriers among non-attenders require more targeted campaigns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL: Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis (review). JAMA 273: 149-154, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  2. De Koning HJ: Assessment of nationwide cancer-screening programmes. Lancet 355: 80-81, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dean PB, Pamilo M: Screening mammography in Finland-1.5 million examinations with 97 percent specificity. Acta Oncologica Suppl 13: 47-54, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lidbrink E, Frisell J, Rosendahl I, Rutqvist L-E: Nonattendance in the Stockholm mammography screening trial: relative mortality and reasons for non-attendance. Breast Cancer Res Treat 35: 267-275, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  5. Aro AR, de Koning HJ, Absetz P, Schreck M: Psychosocial predictors of first attendance for organised mammography screening. J Med Screen 6: 82-88, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  6. Calnan M: The Health Belief Model and participation in programmes for early detection of breast cancer: a comparative analysis. Soc Sci Med 19: 823-830, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  7. Vaile MSB, Calnan M, Rutter DR, Wall B: Breast cancer screening services in three areas: uptake and satisfaction. J Publ Health Med 15: 37-45, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sutton S, Bickler G, Sancho-Aldridge J, Saidi G: Prospective study of predictors of attendance for breast screening in inner London. J Epidemiol Community Health 48: 65-73, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  9. Maclean U, Sinfeld D, Klein S, Harnden B: Women who decline breast screening. J Epidemiol Community Health 38: 278-283, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kee F, Telford AM, Donaghy P, O'Doherty A: Attitude or access: reasons for not attending mammography in Northern Ireland. Eur J Cancer Prev 1: 311-315, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  11. Donato F, Bollani A, Spiazzi R, Soldo M, Pasquale L, Monarca S, Lucini L, Nardi G: Factors associated with nonparticipation of women in a breast cancer screening programme in a town in a northern Italy. J Epidemiol Community Health 45: 59-64, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ciatto S, Cecchini S, Isu A, Maggi A, Cammelli S: Determinants of non-attendance to mammographic screening. Analysis of a population sample of the screening program in the district of Florence. Tumori 78: 22-25, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rodriquez C, Plasencia A, Schroeder DG: Predictive factors of enrolment and adherence in a breast cancer screening program in Barcelona (Spain). Soc Sci Med 40: 1155-1160, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  14. Scaf-Klomp W, van Sonderen E, van den Heuvel W: Compliance after 17 years of breast cancer screening. Eur J Public Health 7: 182-187, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  15. Meystre-Agustoni H, Dubois-Arber F, de Landstheer J-P, Paccaud F: Exploring the reasons for non-participation of women in a breast cancer screening campaign. Eur J Public Health 8: 143-145, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  16. Saidi G, Sutton S, Bickler G: A Predictive study of reasons for attendance and non-attendance at a breast screening programme. Psychol Health 13: 23-33, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hunt SM, Alexander F, Roberts MM: Attenders and nonattenders at a breast screening clinic: a comparative study. Public Health 102: 3-10, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  18. Aro AR, Absetz P, van Elderen TM, van der Ploeg, van der Kamp L: False-positive findings in mammography screening induce short-term distress-breast cancer-specific concern prevails longer. Eur J Cancer 36: 1989-1997, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mustonen S: Survo: An Integrated Environment for Statistical Computing and Related Areas. Survo Systems Ltd, Helsinki University Printing House, Helsinki, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  20. Aro AR: Mammografiaseulontaan osallistumista selittävät psykososiaaliset tekijät. (Psychosocial Factors Explaining Uptake of Mammography Screening, English summary). Publications of the National Public Health Institute A 2/1996, Helsinki, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  21. Beck AT, Steer RA, Garbin MG: Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: twenty-five years of evaluation. Clin Psychol Rev 8: 77-100, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rutledge DN, Hartman WH, Kinman PO, Winsfield AC: Explorations of factors affecting mammography behaviours. Prev Med 17: 412-422, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hyman RB, Baker S, Ephraim R, Moadel A, Philip J: Health belief variables as predictors of screening mammography utilization. J Behav Med 17: 391-406, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  24. McBride CM, Curry SJ, Taplin S, Anderman C, Grothaus L: Exploring environmental barriers to participation in mammography screening in an HMO. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prevent 2: 599-605, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schofield PE, Cockburn J, Hill DJ, Reading D: Encouraging attendance at a screening mammography programme: determinants of response to different recruitment strategies. J Med Screen 1: 144-149, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  26. Törnberg SA: Screening for early detection of cancer. Ethical aspects. Acta Oncologica 38: 77-81, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  27. Aro AR, Absetz P, Eerola, Pamilo M, Lönnqvist J: Pain and discomfort during mammography. Eur J Cancer 32A: 1674-1679, 1996

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aro, A.R., Koning, H.J.d., Absetz, P. et al. Two distinct groups of non-attenders in an organized mammography screening program. Breast Cancer Res Treat 70, 145–153 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012939228916

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012939228916

Navigation