» Articles » PMID: 22533666

Using Record Linkage to Monitor Equity and Variation in Screening Programmes

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2012 Apr 27
PMID 22533666
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Ecological or survey based methods to investigate screening uptake rates are fraught with many limitations which can be circumvented by record linkage between Census and health services datasets using variations in breast screening attendance as an exemplar. The aim of this current study is to identify the demographic, socio-economic factors associated with uptake of breast screening.

Methods: Record linkage study: combining 2001 Census data within the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study (NILS) with data relating to validated breast screening histories from the National Breast Screening System. A cohort was identified of 37,059 women aged 48-64 at the Census who were invited for routine breast screening in the three years following the Census. All cohort attributes were as recorded on the Census form.

Results: The record linkage methodology enabled the records of almost 40,000 of those invited for screening to be analysed at an individual level, exceeding the largest published survey by a factor of ten. This produced a more robust analysis and demonstrated (in fully adjusted models) the lower uptake amongst non-married women and those in the lowest social class (OR 0.74; 95%CI 0.66, 0.82), factors that had not been reported earlier in the UK. In addition, with the availability of both individual and area information it was possible to show that the much lower screening uptake in urban areas is not due to differences in population composition suggesting unrecognised organisational problems.

Conclusions: Linkage of screening data to Census-based longitudinal studies is an efficient and powerful way to increase the evidence base on sources of variation in screening uptake within the UK.

Citing Articles

Determinants of Non-Participation in Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ding L, Wang J, Greuter M, Goossens M, Van Hal G, de Bock G Front Oncol. 2022; 12:817222.

PMID: 35311110 PMC: 8924365. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.817222.


Factors associated with attendance at screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mottram R, Knerr W, Gallacher D, Fraser H, Al-Khudairy L, Ayorinde A BMJ Open. 2021; 11(11):e046660.

PMID: 34848507 PMC: 8634222. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046660.

References
1.
OReilly D, Rosato M, Catney G, Johnston F, Brolly M . Cohort description: the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study (NILS). Int J Epidemiol. 2011; 41(3):634-41. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyq271. View

2.
van Jaarsveld C, Miles A, Edwards R, Wardle J . Marriage and cancer prevention: does marital status and inviting both spouses together influence colorectal cancer screening participation?. J Med Screen. 2007; 13(4):172-6. DOI: 10.1177/096914130601300403. View

3.
Weller D, Coleman D, Robertson R, Butler P, Melia J, Campbell C . The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England. Br J Cancer. 2007; 97(12):1601-5. PMC: 2360273. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604089. View

4.
Sabates R, Feinstein L . The role of education in the uptake of preventative health care: the case of cervical screening in Britain. Soc Sci Med. 2006; 62(12):2998-3010. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.032. View

5.
Moser K, Naish J, Chambers M . Cervical smear uptake rates. BMJ. 1994; 309(6952):476-7. PMC: 2540912. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.309.6952.476b. View