Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorHolen, Åsne Sørlien
dc.contributor.authorSebuødegård, Sofie
dc.contributor.authorWåde, Gunvor Gipling
dc.contributor.authorAase, Hildegunn Siv
dc.contributor.authorHopland, Nina
dc.contributor.authorPedersen, Kristin
dc.contributor.authorLarsen, Marthe
dc.contributor.authorTsuruda, Kaitlyn
dc.contributor.authorHofvind, Solveig
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-08T13:21:30Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-21T11:24:02Z
dc.date.available2019-10-08T13:21:30Z
dc.date.available2019-10-21T11:24:02Z
dc.date.issued2019-08-20
dc.identifier.citationHolen, Sebuødegård, Wåde, Aase, Hopland, Pedersen, Larsen, Tsuruda, Hofvind. Screening at stationary versus mobile units in BreastScreen Norway. Journal of Medical Screening. 2019en
dc.identifier.issn0969-1413
dc.identifier.issn0969-1413
dc.identifier.issn1475-5793
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10642/7740
dc.description.abstractObjective To compare breast characteristics, compression parameters, and early performance measures (rates of recall, screen-detected and interval breast cancer, and histopathologic tumour characteristics) for mammographic screening at a stationary versus mobile screening unit. Methods Results from 92,408 mammographic screening examinations performed as part of BreastScreen Norway during 2008–2017 at either a stationary (n = 52,620) or mobile (n = 39,788) unit in Hordaland county were compared using descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations. A generalized estimating equation for a binary outcome was used to estimate crude and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for the outcomes of interest. Adjusted generalized estimating equation models included age, breast volume, and density grade as covariates. Results Screening at the stationary unit was performed on smaller breasts with higher mammographic density, using lower compression force but higher pressure than at the mobile unit. Using the stationary screening unit as reference, for women screened at the mobile unit, the adjusted odds ratio was: for recall 0.94 (95% CI: 0.87--1.01), screen-detected breast cancer 0.92 (95% CI: 0.78--1.10), and interval breast cancer 1.17 (95% CI: 0.83–1.64). Conclusions The quality of care did not differ for women screened at the stationary versus the mobile unit, but there were differences between the women who attended the two units. Sociodemographic factors should be included in future analyses to fully understand the risk of breast cancer among women residing in urban versus rural areas.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSage Publicationsen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJournal of Medical Screening;Vol 27, Issue 1, 2020
dc.rightsHolen, Å. S., Sebuødegård, S., Wåde, G. G., Aase, H. S., Hopland, N., Pedersen, K., Larsen, M., Tsuruda, K., Hofvind, S. Screening at stationary versus mobile units in BreastScreen Norway. Journal of Medical Screening, Vol 27, Issue 1, , page(s): 31-39. Copyright © 2020 The Authors. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969141319875158en
dc.subjectMammographyen
dc.subjectCancer screeningsen
dc.subjectMass screeningsen
dc.subjectBreast canceren
dc.subjectSocioeconomic factorsen
dc.subjectHealth servicesen
dc.titleScreening at stationary versus mobile units in BreastScreen Norwayen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.typePeer revieweden
dc.date.updated2019-10-08T13:21:30Z
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionen
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969141319875158
dc.identifier.cristin1734670
dc.source.journalJournal of Medical Screening


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel