Attendance and non-attendance for breast screening at the south east London breast screening service.
- 8 July 1989
- Vol. 299 (6691) , 104-106
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.299.6691.104
Abstract
OBJECTIVES--To ascertain the reasons for a low rate of response for breast screening. DESIGN--All relevant aspects of the organisational process examined, including general practitioners' notes. Non-responders visited and interviewed. SETTING--An inner city breast screening service working on the model advocated by the Forrest report. SUBJECTS--288 Women aged 50-64 registered with several general practices and invited for screening by post. MAIN OUTCOME--Determination of factors important for success of breast screening programmes. RESULTS--After five women were excluded by their general practitioners the response rate was 129 out of 283 (46%), but 99 (35%) of the women did not receive their invitations because of inaccuracies in the family practitioner committee's database and general practitioners failing to check women's addresses completely. CONCLUSIONS--Increased rates of response will depend on enabling general practitioners to check addresses and on an increased awareness of the importance of information.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Screening: the inadequacy of population registers.BMJ, 1989
- Health education in a computer-managed cervical screening programmeHealth Education Journal, 1988
- Attenders and non-attenders at a breast screening clinic: a comparative studyPublic Health, 1988
- Age-sex registers as a screening tool for general practice: size of the wrong address problem.BMJ, 1984
- The accuracy of age-sex registers in general practice.1984
- The accuracy of age-sex registers, practice medical records and family practitioner committee registers.1981