Skip to main content
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 1989 Jul 8;299(6691):104–106. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6691.104

Attendance and non-attendance for breast screening at the south east London breast screening service.

J McEwen 1, E King 1, G Bickler 1
PMCID: PMC1837095  PMID: 2504314

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.

Full text

PDF
106

Images in this article

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bowling A., Jacobson B. Screening: the inadequacy of population registers. BMJ. 1989 Mar 4;298(6673):545–546. doi: 10.1136/bmj.298.6673.545. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Eardley A., Elkind A., Spencer B., Haran D., Hobbs P., McGuinness H. Health education in a computer-managed cervical screening programme. Health Educ J. 1988;47(2-3):43–47. doi: 10.1177/001789698804700202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Elkind A. K., Haran D., Eardley A., Spencer B. Computer-managed cervical cytology screening: a pilot study of non-attenders. Public Health. 1987 Jul;101(4):253–266. doi: 10.1016/s0033-3506(87)80076-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fraser R. C., Clayton D. G. The accuracy of age-sex registers, practice medical records and family practitioner committee registers. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1981 Jul;31(228):410–419. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hunt S. M., Alexander F., Roberts M. M. Attenders and non-attenders at a breast screening clinic: a comparative study. Public Health. 1988 Jan;102(1):3–10. doi: 10.1016/s0033-3506(88)80004-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Sheldon M. G., Rector A. L., Barnes P. A. The accuracy of age-sex registers in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1984 May;34(262):269–271. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Silman A. J. Age-sex registers as a screening tool for general practice: size of the wrong address problem. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Aug 18;289(6442):415–416. doi: 10.1136/bmj.289.6442.415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES