Skip to main content

Table 3 Health behaviour and the risk of not attending mammography screening

From: Non-attendance in mammography screening and women’s social network: a cohort study on the influence of family composition, social support, attitudes and cancer in close relations

Factor

Category

Attendees

Non-attendees

OR (95 % CI)

OR (95 % CI)

OR (95 % CI)

N (%)

N (%)

Crude

Age-adjusted

Adjusteda

Attitude on mammography screening

It is good

1302 (98.0)

118 (95.2)

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

It makes no difference

12 (0.9)

5 (4.0)

4.60 (1.59–13.27)

4.21 (1.45–12.22)

4.04 (1.38–11.83)

It does more harm than good

2 (0.2)

0

Missing

12 (0.9)

1 (0.8)

Self-rated risk of breast cancer

Low

750 (56.5)

68 (54.8)

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

Medium

488 (36.7)

49 (39.5)

1.11 (0.75–1.63)

1.18 (0.80–1.75)

1.20 (0.81–1.79)

High

56 (4.2)

5 (4.0)

0.98 (0.38–2.54)

1.10 (0.42–2.86)

1.10 (0.42–2.88)

Missing

34 (2.6)

2 (1.6)

Planned future participation

Yes

1232 (92.8)

87 (70.2)

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

No

46 (3.5)

16 (12.9)

4.93 (2.68–9.75)

4.74 (2.57–8.74)

4.78 (2.56–8.90)

Do not know

43 (3.3)

12 (9.7)

3.95 (2.01–7.77)

3.47 (1.74–6.89)

3.37 (1.69–6.72)

Missing

7 (0.5)

9 (7.3)

Previous cervical screening

Yes

1143 (86.1)

96 (77.4)

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

1.00 (reference)

No

156 (11.7)

26 (21.0)

1.98 (1.25–3.16)

1.71 (1.06–2.78)

1.69 (1.04–2.75)

Missing

29 (2.2)

2 (1.6)

  1. aSocioeconomic factors: age, born in Sweden, level of education and occupation