You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effect of an organised screening program on socioeconomic inequalities in mammography practice, knowledge and attitudes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal for Equity in Health, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12939-018-0811-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Relecom, B. Arzel, T. Perneger |
| Abstract |
Breast cancer stands as the leading cause of cancer related mortality in women worldwide. Mammography screening has the potential to improve prognosis by reducing stage at diagnosis. Socioeconomic inequalities in mammography cancer screening have been widely reported. The influence of organised programs on socioeconomic disparities regarding mammography screening is to date unclear. We aimed to investigate the impact of an organised regional screening program on socioeconomic inequalities in terms of the uptake, knowledge and attitudes towards mammography screening. Data were obtained from two cross-sectional surveys of women 50 to 69 years old conducted in 1998 and 2012, before and after the implementation of an organised breast cancer screening program in Geneva, Switzerland. Socioeconomic status was measured by monthly household income and education level. Logistic and linear regression multivariable models were used to investigate the evolution of socioeconomic gradients between 1998 and 2012 in terms of uptake, knowledge and attitudes towards mammography screening. In 1998, before the implementation of an organised screening program, 44% of women from the lowest education category reported mammography practice conforming to recommendations versus 63% of the more educated participants. This socioeconomic gradient was no longer present in 2012 where reported mammography practice at guideline-recommended frequency were 83 and 82% in the lowest and highest education level categories respectively (change in education gradient over time, p = 0.018). The difference in mammography practice in agreement with recommendations between the lowest and the highest income category went from 27 percentage points in 1998 to 14 percentage points in 2012 (change in income gradient over time, p = 0.10). The socioeconomic gradient in negative attitudes towards mammography screening persisted in 2012 but was reduced compared to 1998. We did not observe a reduction in the socioeconomic disparities in knowledge regarding mammography screening over this period. This study suggests that mammography screening programs may lessen socioeconomic inequities in mammography practice. Such programs should feature adapted communication tools to reach women of lower socioeconomic status to attempt to further reduce socioeconomic gradients in mammography screening. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Researcher | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 35 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 38 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 July 2018.
All research outputs
#17,982,872
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,669
of 1,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,987
of 327,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#49
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.