Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 99, Issue 3, pp 216–220 | Cite as

Retention of Screened Women in the Manitoba Breast Screening Program

  • Kathleen M. DeckerEmail author



The retention rate or the percentage of women who return to screening within 30 months of a previous screening is an important measure of screening success and the acceptability of the screening program to women. The objective of this study was to investigate variables associated with the retention of women 50 to 68 years of age who were screened by the Manitoba Breast Screening Program (MBSP) during 2002 and 2003.


All women screened by the MBSP in 2002 and 2003 who were eligible for re-screening in 2 years were included in the study. Data were extracted from the MBSP database which contains demographic, screening, diagnostic follow-up, and diagnosis information for all women screened by the program. Contingency tables, ?2 tests, and logistic regression were used to investigate variables that were associated with retention.


Retention was related to screen type (first or return), screen result (normal or abnormal), family history of breast cancer (risk or no risk), education (less than grade 9 or some high school or more), and ethnicity (Asian, First Nations, other). Retention was not related to residence (rural or urban).


Overall screening retention at the MBSP was 80% which meets national standards. However, additional efforts may be required to improve the retention rate of Asian and First Nations women as well as women who had an abnormal screening result or less than a grade 9 level of education.

Key words

Screening breast cancer retention 



Le taux de persévérance (le pourcentage des femmes qui se soumettent de nouveau à un examen de dépistage dans les 30 mois qui suivent un examen antérieur) est un indicateur important du succès d’un programme de dépistage et de son acceptabilité auprès des femmes. Cette étude avait pour objectif d’examiner les variables associées à la persévérance chez les femmes de 50 à 68 ans ayant subi un examen de dépistage du Programme manitobain de dépistage du cancer du sein (PMDCS) en 2002 et 2003.


L’étude a tenu compte de toutes les femmes qui ont subi un examen de dépistage du PMDCS en 2002 et 2003 et qui étaient admissibles à un redépistage après 2 ans. Les données ont été extraites de la base du PMDCS, qui contient des données démographiques, de dépistage, de suivi diagnostique et de diagnostic sur toutes les femmes ayant subi un examen de dépistage dans le cadre du programme. Pour examiner les variables associées à la persévérance, on a utilisé les tableaux de contingence, le test du khi-carré et la régression logistique.


La persévérance a été associée au type d’examen de dépistage (premier ou subséquent), au résultat de l’examen (normal ou anormal), aux antécédents familiaux de cancer du sein (à risque ou non), à la scolarité (8e année ou moins, certaines études secondaires, études supérieures) ainsi qu’à l’origine ethnique (asiatique, Premières nations, autre). La persévérance n’a pas été associée au lieu de résidence (milieu rural ou urbain).


Dans l’ensemble, le taux de persévérance en ce qui concerne les examens de dépistage du PMDCS était de 80%, ce qui satisfait aux normes nationales. Toutefois, il faudrait peut-être déployer davantage d’efforts pour améliorer le taux de persévérance chez les femmes asiatiques et des Premières nations ainsi que chez les femmes dont l’examen de dépistage s’est traduit par un résultat anormal ou qui ont moins de 9 ans de scolarité.

Mots clés

dépistage cancer du sein persévérance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammogra-phy. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1995;273:149–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Health Canada. Organized breast cancer screening programs in Canada. 1999 and 2000 report. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Evaluation Indicators Working Group, Health Canada. Guidelines for monitoring breast screening program performance. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Decker KM, Harrison M, Watters K. Manitoba Breast Screening Program Biennial Report, 2004–2006. Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Breast Screening Program, CancerCare Manitoba, 2007.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gail MH, Costanino JP. Validating and improving models for projecting absolute risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93(5):334–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    SAS version 9.1. Carey, NC: SAS Institute, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson MM, Hislop TG, Kan L, Coldman AJ, Lai A. Compliance with the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia: Will she return? Can J Public Health 1996;87(3):176–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hofvind SS, Wang H, Thoresen S. The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program: Re-attendance related to the woman’s experiences, intentions, and previous screening result. Cancer Causes and Control 2003;14(4):391–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lampic C, Thurfjell E, Sjoden PO. The influence of false-positive mammogram on a woman’s subsequent behaviour for detecting breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:1730–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burman ML, Taplin SH, Herta DF, Elmore JG. Effect of false-positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organization. Ann Intern Med 1999;131(1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pisano ED, Earp J, Schell M, Vokaty K, Denham A. Screening behaviour of women after a false-positive mammogram. Radiology 1998;208:245–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Decker K, Harrison M, Tate R. Satisfaction of women attending the Manitoba Breast Screening Program. J Prev Med 1999;29:22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marc DeSilva, Manitoba Health. Personal Communication. Winnipeg, 2006.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lerman C, Daly M, Sands C, Balshem A, Lustbader E, Heggan T, et al. Mammography adherence and psychological distress among women at risk for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85(13):1074–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Phillips KA, Kerlikowske K, Baker LC, Chang SW, Brown ML. Factors associated with women’s adherence to mammography screening guidelines. Health Serv Res 1998;33(1):29–53.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    O’Byrne A-M, Kavanagh AM, Ugoni A, Diver F. Predictors of non-attendance for second round mammography in an Australian mammographic screening programme. J Med Screening 2000;7:190–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elwood M, NcNoe B, Smith T, Bandaranayake M, Doyle TC. Once is enough: Why some women do not continue to participate in a breast screening programme. N Z Med J 1998;111(1066):180–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Screening ProgramsCancerCare ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations