Socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, location of service, and uptake of breast cancer screening in North Derbyshire, UK

Background and aim: This study examined the association between socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, urban-rural status, location and type of screening unit, and breast screening uptake. Screening was provided at 13 locations—1 fixed and 12 mobile (3 at non-health locations). Methods: The study examined data from 1998 to 2001 for 34 868 women aged 50–64 years, calculated road travel distance, used 1991 enumeration district level Townsend socioeconomic deprivation scores, and a ward level urban-rural classification. Results: Odds of attendance for screening decreased with increasing socioeconomic deprivation, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.64 (95%CI 0.59 to 0.70) in the most deprived relative to the least deprived category. 87% of women lived within 8 km of their screening location. The odds ratio for a 10 km increase in distance was 0.87 (95%CI 0.79 to 0.95). The odds ratios were 1.18 (95%CI 1.08 to 1.28) for screening at a non-health relative to a health location, 1.00 (95%CI 0.94 to 1.07) for the fixed site relative to the mobile unit and 1.00 (95%CI 0.91 to 1.09) for mainly rural relative to mainly urban areas. Conclusions: Socioeconomic inequality in breast screening uptake seems to persist in an established service. There was a small decrease with increasing distance, no difference between fixed and mobile units, and no difference between urban and rural areas but uptake seemed to be higher at non-health sites. Further work is needed to identify effective methods of decreasing socioeconomic inequalities in uptake and to confirm if non-health locations are associated with higher screening uptake.

[1]  V. Beral,et al.  Comparison of various characteristics of women who do and do not attend for breast cancer screening , 2001, Breast Cancer Research.

[2]  J. Hyndman,et al.  Effect of distance and social disadvantage on the response to invitations to attend mammography screening , 2000, Journal of medical screening.

[3]  A S St Leger,et al.  Interventions to increase breast screening uptake: do they make any difference? , 1999, Journal of medical screening.

[4]  J. Kleijnen,et al.  The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review. , 2000, Health technology assessment.

[5]  P. Littlejohns,et al.  Comparison of prognostic and socio-economic factors in screen-detected and symptomatic cases of breast cancer. , 1998, Public health.

[6]  A. Forrest,et al.  Mobile breast screening: factors affecting uptake, efforts to increase response and acceptability. , 1990, Public health.

[7]  P. Townsend,et al.  Health and Deprivation: Inequality and the North , 1987 .

[8]  E. Ellerbeck,et al.  Impact of Geographic Barriers on the Utilization of Mammograms by Older Rural Women , 2002, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[9]  R. Given-Wilson,et al.  Do General Practitioners Influence the Uptake of Breast Cancer Screening? , 1995, Journal of medical screening.

[10]  L. Reay,et al.  The effect of access factors on breast screening attendance on two Scottish islands. , 1997, Health bulletin.

[11]  A. Maxwell Relocation of a static breast screening unit: a study of factors affecting attendance , 2000, Journal of medical screening.

[12]  H. Goodare,et al.  NHS breast screening programme , 1999, BMJ.

[13]  Profile of women not attending in the Swiss Mammography Screening Pilot Programme. , 2004, Breast.

[14]  J. Cairns,et al.  Predicting Attendance for Breast Screening Using Routinely Collected Data , 2003, Health care management science.

[15]  A. Gatrell,et al.  Uptake of screening for breast cancer in south Lancashire. , 1998, Public health.