The percentage of one or more positive screens was also larger in the TEQ-20 group (76% vs 70%; p=0.03).
There was a statistical difference in the number of positive screens between the two intervention groups, with TEQ-20 having slightly more positive screens than TEQ-10 (on average, 1.52 (SD=1.66) for TEQ-10 and 1.82 (SD=1.99) for TEQ-20, p=0.003).
Several other contrasts appeared numerically large, even though they did not reach statistical significance: Anonymous-Postcard respondents reported more childhood physical abuse (p = 0.06) and had fewer positive depression screens compared to the other tracking/privacy groups (p = 0.09), and Confidential respondents reported more combat (p = 0.09) and had more positive PTSD screens (p = 0.08).
The mammography plus MRI strategy of the model differs from the mammography alone strategy in four key ways: the cost of MRI screening, increased screening sensitivity, a more favourable stage distribution among MRI-detected cancers, and more false positive screens due to decreased screening specificity.
A selection bias may explain this difference in attitude, as experienced subjects have already demonstrated interest in screening and therefore express a more positive attitude towards screening.
However, the specificity of MRI is lower than mammography 73-800% for mammography and MRI vs. 91-99% for mammography alone [ 10- 18]), giving rise to more false positive screens, which may increase costs and negatively impact quality of life for screening participants [ 19].
Those who drank alcohol had a more positive attitude to screening and had more accurate knowledge about what screening for oral cancer entails.
Additionally patients who had previously heard of oral cancer had more positive attitudes to screening (rho=0.189, p=0.014).
Finally, a Mann–Whitney U test revealed respondents who went for regular checkups had significantly more positive attitudes to screening(Md= 13.50) than those who went occasionally (Md=12.36) or only with trouble (Md=12.97).
Previously screened subjects had a more positive attitude towards all screening tests than screening-naive subjects (Table 3, P<0.001).
