1
|
Newcome J, Choe A, Hobgood L, Turner MCB, Lundberg A. Improving Breast Cancer Screening Rates in a Resident Clinic in Eastern North Carolina. Am J Med Qual 2020; 35:503. [DOI: 10.1177/1062860620928282] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
2
|
Beaber EF, Sprague BL, Tosteson ANA, Haas JS, Onega T, Schapira MM, McCarthy AM, Li CI, Herschorn SD, Lehman CD, Wernli KJ, Barlow WE. Multilevel Predictors of Continued Adherence to Breast Cancer Screening Among Women Ages 50-74 Years in a Screening Population. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2018; 28:1051-1059. [PMID: 30481098 DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2018.6997] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: U.S. women of ages 50-74 years are recommended to receive screening mammography at least biennially. Our objective was to evaluate multilevel predictors of nonadherence among screened women, as these are not well known. Materials and Methods: A cohort study was conducted among women of ages 50-74 years with a screening mammogram in 2011 with a negative finding (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System 1 or 2) within Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium research centers. We evaluated the association between woman-level factors, radiology facility, and PROSPR research center, and nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines, defined as not receiving breast imaging within 27 months of an index screening mammogram. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Nonadherence to guideline-recommended screening interval was 15.5% among 51,241 women with a screening mammogram. Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander women, women of other races, heavier women, and women of ages 50-59 years had a greater odds of nonadherence. There was no association with ZIP code median income. Nonadherence varied by research center and radiology facility (variance = 0.10, standard error = 0.03). Adjusted radiology facility nonadherence rates ranged from 10.0% to 26.5%. One research center evaluated radiology facility communication practices for screening reminders and scheduling, but these were not associated with nonadherence. Conclusions: Breast cancer screening interval nonadherence rates in screened women varied across radiology facilities even after adjustment for woman-level characteristics and research center. Future studies should investigate other characteristics of facilities, practices, and health systems to determine factors integral to increasing continued adherence to breast cancer screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elisabeth F Beaber
- 1Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Brian L Sprague
- 2Department of Surgery, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.,3Department of Radiology, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Anna N A Tosteson
- 4The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Department of Medicine, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Jennifer S Haas
- 5Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Tracy Onega
- 6Department of Biomedical Data Science, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.,7Department of Epidemiology, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Marilyn M Schapira
- 8Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Anne Marie McCarthy
- 9Department of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Christopher I Li
- 1Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Sally D Herschorn
- 10Department of Radiology, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Constance D Lehman
- 11Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Karen J Wernli
- 12Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Akinyemiju TF, Soliman AS, Yassine M, Banerjee M, Schwartz K, Merajver S. Healthcare access and mammography screening in Michigan: a multilevel cross-sectional study. Int J Equity Health 2012; 11:16. [PMID: 22436125 PMCID: PMC3414751 DOI: 10.1186/1475-9276-11-16] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2011] [Accepted: 03/21/2012] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Breast cancer screening rates have increased over time in the United States. However actual screening rates appear to be lower among black women compared with white women. PURPOSE To assess determinants of breast cancer screening among women in Michigan USA, focusing on individual and neighborhood socio-economic status and healthcare access. METHODS Data from 1163 women ages 50-74 years who participated in the 2008 Michigan Special Cancer Behavioral Risk Factor Survey were analyzed. County-level SES and healthcare access were obtained from the Area Resource File. Multilevel logistic regression models were fit using SAS Proc Glimmix to account for clustering of individual observations by county. Separate models were fit for each of the two outcomes of interest; mammography screening and clinical breast examination. For each outcome, two sequential models were fit; a model including individual level covariates and a model including county level covariates. RESULTS After adjusting for misclassification bias, overall cancer screening rates were lower than reported by survey respondents; black women had lower mammography screening rates but higher clinical breast examination rates than white women. However, after adjusting for other individual level variables, race was not a significant predictor of screening. Having health insurance or a usual healthcare provider were the most important predictors of cancer screening. DISCUSSION Access to healthcare is important to ensuring appropriate cancer screening among women in Michigan.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tomi F Akinyemiju
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|