Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Feb 14;18(1):252.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5139-9.

Income inequality in uptake of voluntary versus organised breast cancer screening: evidence from the British Household Panel Survey

Patricia Carney  1 , Ciaran O'Neill  2
Affiliations

Income inequality in uptake of voluntary versus organised breast cancer screening: evidence from the British Household Panel Survey

Patricia Carney et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: This paper measures income-related inequality in uptake of breast cancer screening among women before and after a policy change to extend the screening programme to women aged 65 to 70. Prior to programme expansion women aged 50 to 64 were invited for screening under the national cancer screening programme in England and Wales whereas women in the 65 to 70 age cohort could elect to be screened by personally organising a screen. This will give a deeper insight into the nature of inequality in screening and the impact of policies aimed at widening the access related to age on inequality of uptake.

Methods: Taking advantage of this natural experiment, inequality is quantified across the different age cohorts and time periods with the use of concentration indices (CI). Using data from the British Household Panel Survey, information on screening attendance, equivalised household income and age was taken for the three years prior to the programme expansion and the three years immediately following the policy change.

Results: Results show that following the expansion, inequality significantly reduced for the 50-64 age group, prior to the expansion there was a pro-rich inequality in screening uptake. There is also evidence of a reduction in income inequality in screening uptake among those aged 65 to 70 and an increase in the number of women attending screening from this older age cohort.

Conclusions: This indicates that an organised breast screening programme is likely to reduce income related inequality over a screening programme where women must organise their own screen. This is important when breast screening is one of the main methods used to detect breast cancer at an earlier stage which improves outcomes for women and reduces treatment costs.

Keywords: Breast screening; Health economics; Income inequality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Equivalised household income distribution for the four samples
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Screening uptake by income quintile
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Marmot MG. Sorting through the arguments on breast screening. JAMA. 2013;309(24):2553–2554. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.6822. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pace LE, Keating NL. A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions. JAMA. 2014;311(13):1327–1335. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.1398. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:1–81. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pharoah PDP, Sewell B, Fitzsimmons D, Bennett HS, Pashayan N. Cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme: life table model. BMJ : British Med J. 2013;346:f2618. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2618. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Donzelli A. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. Lancet. 2013;381(9869):799–800. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60619-4. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types