89 Attendance characteristics of the breast and colorectal CSPs Table 4. Results univariate regression analyses on attendance, concerning invitees and significant abnormalities. (continued) OR (95% CI) p-value n SES 4 x Stage 2 1.25 (0.49-3.17) 0.64 39 SES 4 x Stage 3 1.12 (0.50-2.49) 0.79 58 SES 4 x Stage 4 0.89 (0.34-2.31) 0.80 30 SES 3 x Stage 1 2.15 (0.57-8.03) 0.26 23 SES 3 x Stage 2 >10.00 (0.00- >10.00) 1.00 9 SES 3 x Stage 3 0.97 (0.18-5.19) 0.97 8 SES 3 x Stage 4 0.48 (0.08-3.11) 0.44 5 SES 2 x Stage 1 3.46 (1.10-10.91) 0.03* 47 SES 2 x Stage 2 1.85 (0.57-6.03) 0.31 27 SES 2 x Stage 3 4.83 (1.06-22.13) 0.04* 32 SES 2 x Stage 4 2.25 (0.26-19.51) 0.46 8 SES 1 x Stage 1 1.45 (0.60-3.56) 0.40 50 SES 1 x Stage 2 0.59 (0.25-1.13) 0.24 34 SES 1 x Stage 3 0.81 (0.36-1.81) 0.60 49 SES 1 x Stage 4 0.64 (0.21-2.00) 0.44 18 SES= social economic status (SES 1: low; SES 4: high), CRC= colorectal cancer *Statistically significant associated with attendance at the cancer screening programmes Comparison of the two screening programmes In total n=38,071 women were invited for both CSPs. Most of these women attended both programmes, n=26,560 (69.8%). Only a small number of women did not participate in any programme, n=1,679 (4.4%). Between the four different subgroups, both ‘year of birth’ (Kruskal-Walllis: p<.01) and ‘neighbourhood SES-score’ were statistically different (Likelihood Ratio: p<.01). Women who did not attend the BC-SP but did attend the CRC-SP were the youngest, with a median year of birth of 1954. Non-attenders tended to live more in the neighbourhoods with lower SES-scores. Especially non-attendance at the CRC-SP seemed to be associated with lower a SES-score (BC+, CRC-; SES-score 1= 37.3%, and BC-, CRC-; SES-score 1= 40.7%, compared to BC+, CRC+; SES-score 1= 27.5%.) (Table 5). 3
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw