OBJECTIVE: To describe the extent to which women with seriously abnormal mammograms complete indicated follow-up, the timeliness of this follow-up, and variations in the pattern of use of diagnostic procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-two women enrolled in a single urban health maintenance organization (HMO) with an abnormal index mammogram (mass or suspicious calcifications) during 1995 or 1996 were identified by review of all HMO mammography reports. Data were abstracted from medical records concerning all clinical services received over the 11 months after the date of the abnormal mammogram. Procedure costs were estimated based on 1997 Medicare relative-value units. Logistic regression and a multivariate accelerated failure-time model were used to evaluate the association between predictor variables and the occurrence and timing of completion of follow-up. RESULTS: Follow-up was not completed by 31 (34%) of the 92 study women and was delayed beyond 60 days for another 32 (35%). In adjusted analysis, factors associated with completion within 60 days included age less than 50 years and inclusion of a specific follow-up recommendation in the mammogram report. Completion by the end of the study (a minimum of 11 months after the index mammogram) was associated only with the presence of a specific follow-up recommendation. The follow-up process (i.e., the diagnostic procedures used) was highly variable but almost always included surgical evaluation. The average cost among those completing follow-up was about $1900 (in 1997 dollars). CONCLUSIONS: Incomplete follow-up after a potentially seriously abnormal mammogram constitutes an important barrier to breast cancer control efforts in the study HMO, but its explanation remains incompletely understood. The follow-up process itself is highly variable, and improvement in its efficiency and timely completion will require a better understanding of its determinants.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the extent to which women with seriously abnormal mammograms complete indicated follow-up, the timeliness of this follow-up, and variations in the pattern of use of diagnostic procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-two women enrolled in a single urban health maintenance organization (HMO) with an abnormal index mammogram (mass or suspicious calcifications) during 1995 or 1996 were identified by review of all HMO mammography reports. Data were abstracted from medical records concerning all clinical services received over the 11 months after the date of the abnormal mammogram. Procedure costs were estimated based on 1997 Medicare relative-value units. Logistic regression and a multivariate accelerated failure-time model were used to evaluate the association between predictor variables and the occurrence and timing of completion of follow-up. RESULTS: Follow-up was not completed by 31 (34%) of the 92 study women and was delayed beyond 60 days for another 32 (35%). In adjusted analysis, factors associated with completion within 60 days included age less than 50 years and inclusion of a specific follow-up recommendation in the mammogram report. Completion by the end of the study (a minimum of 11 months after the index mammogram) was associated only with the presence of a specific follow-up recommendation. The follow-up process (i.e., the diagnostic procedures used) was highly variable but almost always included surgical evaluation. The average cost among those completing follow-up was about $1900 (in 1997 dollars). CONCLUSIONS: Incomplete follow-up after a potentially seriously abnormal mammogram constitutes an important barrier to breast cancer control efforts in the study HMO, but its explanation remains incompletely understood. The follow-up process itself is highly variable, and improvement in its efficiency and timely completion will require a better understanding of its determinants.
Authors: Anne Elizabeth Glassgow; Yamile Molina; Sage Kim; Richard T Campbell; Julie Darnell; Elizabeth A Calhoun Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2018-06-15
Authors: Annette E Maxwell; Angela M Jo; Catherine M Crespi; Madhuri Sudan; Roshan Bastani Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-07-31 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Debra Wujcik; Yu Shyr; Ming Li; Margaret F Clayton; Lee Ellington; Usha Menon; Kathi Mooney Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Mark E Bensink; Scott D Ramsey; Tracy Battaglia; Kevin Fiscella; Thelma C Hurd; June M McKoy; Steven R Patierno; Peter C Raich; Eric E Seiber; Victoria Warren-Mears; Elizabeth Whitley; Electra D Paskett; S Mandelblatt Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hardeep Singh; Lindsey Wilson; Laura A Petersen; Mona K Sawhney; Brian Reis; Donna Espadas; Dean F Sittig Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 2.796