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