Table 5.

Difference in proportion of women participating in screening after receiving intervention by screening history and socioeconomic and demographic factors

First intervention
Second intervention
Third intervention
Differencea95% CIbDifferencea95% CIbDifferencea95% CIb
All women1.3−0.3 to–10.531.426.9–35.9
    24–29−2.0−5.0 to–10.421.714.7–28.7
    45–591.5−1.2 to–11.638.429.8–47.0
Have had prior smear
    Yes1.8−0.0 to 3.710.69.1–12.236.530.8–42.3
    No−0.8−3.5 to–7.7***20.513.9–27.1***
    Low3.7−0.1 to–10.824.712.3–37.2
    Intermediate1.4−1.0 to 3.911.59.4–13.5*30.923.8–38.1
    High0.1−2.4 to–9.332.926.3–39.5
Employment statusc
    Employed/student1.7−0.1 to–11.132.627.3–37.8
    Other−0.4−3.5 to––35.2
Disposable incomec
    0–1991.9−0.3 to–10.929.823.8–36.0
    ≥2000.7−1.5 to–11.032.726.1–39.2
Social welfare
    Yes1.7−3.4 to–7.917.35.2–29.5
    No1.2−0.4 to–11.0**33.128.3–37.9*
Marital statusc
    Married/cohabitant1.5−0.7 to 3.811.49.5–13.335.328.0–42.6
    Single0.8−1.4 to–8.6***28.222.5–33.7
Have childrenc
    Yes1.7−0.5 to–11.836.229.2–43.3
    No0.7−1.5 to––32.7*
Country of birthc
    Sweden1.5−0.2 to–10.532.227.1–37.2
    Other0.3−3.6 to 4.310.06.9–12.928.018.6–37.3
    Swedish1.6−0.0 to–10.432.427.7–37.2
    Other−3.5−9.0 to–14.420.68.7–32.6
  • a Difference in proportion of attenders in comparison with reference categories.

  • b Test for homogeneity: *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001.

  • c When the numbers do not add up to the 12,157 women studied, it is due missing observations (from 1 to 180) in the LOUISE database.