ArticleEuropean journal of public health2025
The effect on attendance of the requirement to confirm a pre-scheduled appointment in a population-based mammography screening programme.
Article in European journal of public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer recommends pre-scheduled appointments to enhance attendance in population-based mammography screening programmes (PMSP). Pre-scheduled appointments often lead to no-shows, resulting in inefficient use of time and staff in screening units. Requiring women to confirm their appointments can reduce no-shows but might negatively impact attendance. We conducted a non-interventional study to assess the impact of requiring confirmation on attendance rates. The study involved 291 127 women aged 50-69 invited to PMSP between 1 June 2022 and 31 May 2023. Propensity scores were used to match women who were required to confirm their pre-scheduled appointments (exposure) 1:1 with those who were not required to confirm (comparator). This was done separately in four strata based on screening history: first-time invitees, regular attendees, irregular attendees, and non-attendees. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used to analyse the effect of the exposure on attendance within 60 days, separately for each stratum. If first-time invitees were obliged to confirm their pre-scheduled appointment, their attendance was 19% lower [odds ratio (OR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.86]. The impact on regular attendees (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.99), irregular attendees (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.99), and non-attendees (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-1.01) was minimal or non-significant. Requiring confirmation poses a barrier for first-time invitees but has little effect on those with previous screening history. Limiting confirmation requirements to women with prior invitations could optimize resource use in screening units without a notable decrease in attendance rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.