Literature DB >> 12028248

Impact of geographic barriers on the utilization of mammograms by older rural women.

Kimberly K Engelman1, Daniel B Hawley, Rona Gazaway, Michael C Mosier, Jasjit S Ahluwalia, Edward F Ellerbeck.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether geographic proximity to mammography facilities influences mammogram utilization.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis.
SETTING: Rural state. PARTICIPANTS: Female Kansas Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 to 79 (N=117,901). MEASUREMENTS: Using Medicare claims data, we measured county-level mammography rates for beneficiaries in Kansas. We calculated mammography rate differences for beneficiaries according to age, race, distance from permanent and mobile mammography sites, and county characteristics including county mammography service availability.
RESULTS: Of 105 counties, 37% had only permanent mammography facilities, 22% had both permanent and mobile sites, 29% had only mobile facilities, and 11% had neither, representing 44%, 44%, 9%, and 3% of the 117,901 beneficiaries, respectively. Of the beneficiaries, 91% lived less than 20 miles from a permanent facility; of the remaining 9%, 67% lived less than 20 miles from a mobile site. In 30 counties with only mobile sites, 90% of the 10,439 beneficiaries residing in the counties had access to the sites fewer than 2 days per month. County-level mammography rates ranged from 37% to 72%. Mammography utilization was 57% in counties with permanent facilities only, 55% in counties with both permanent and mobile sites, 53% in counties with only mobile sites, and 53% in counties with neither (P=0.12). After adjusting for age, race, and county education level, the odds of receiving a mammogram was slightly lower for persons residing longer distances from a permanent facility (odds ratio=0.97 for each 5-mile increase in distance, 95% confidence interval=0.95-0.99).
CONCLUSION: The majority of Kansans live near a mammography facility. Although there is a large variation in county-level mammography rates across Kansas, this disparity is not well explained by proximity to mammography facilities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12028248     DOI: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50009.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc        ISSN: 0002-8614            Impact factor:   5.562


  43 in total

1.  Characteristics of US counties with no mammography capacity.

Authors:  Lucy A Peipins; Jacqueline Miller; Thomas B Richards; Janet Kay Bobo; Ta Liu; Mary C White; Djenaba Joseph; Florence Tangka; Donatus U Ekwueme
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2012-12

Review 2.  Geographic Access to Mammography and Its Relationship to Breast Cancer Screening and Stage at Diagnosis: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jenna A Khan-Gates; Jennifer L Ersek; Jan M Eberth; Swann A Adams; Sandi L Pruitt
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2015-07-26

3.  Spatial equity in facilities providing low- or no-fee screening mammography in Chicago neighborhoods.

Authors:  Shannon N Zenk; Elizabeth Tarlov; Jiaming Sun
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.671

4.  Socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, location of service, and uptake of breast cancer screening in North Derbyshire, UK.

Authors:  Ravi Maheswaran; Tim Pearson; Hannah Jordan; David Black
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  Late-Stage Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Health Care Access in Illinois.

Authors:  Fahui Wang; Sara McLafferty; Veronica Escamilla; Lan Luo
Journal:  Prof Geogr       Date:  2008-02

6.  Behind the cascade: analyzing spatial patterns along the HIV care continuum.

Authors:  Michael G Eberhart; Baligh R Yehia; Amy Hillier; Chelsea D Voytek; Michael B Blank; Ian Frank; David S Metzger; Kathleen A Brady
Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 3.731

7.  Time and distance barriers to mammography facilities in the Atlanta metropolitan area.

Authors:  Lucy A Peipins; Shannon Graham; Randall Young; Brian Lewis; Stephanie Foster; Barry Flanagan; Andrew Dent
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2011-08

8.  Rural vs urban residence affects risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Allison E Anderson; Kevin A Henry; N Jewel Samadder; Ray M Merrill; Anita Y Kinney
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-12-04       Impact factor: 11.382

9.  Sociodemographic Characteristics, Distance to the Clinic, and Breast Cancer Screening Results.

Authors:  Seijeoung Kim; Beverly Chukwudozie; Elizabeth Calhoun
Journal:  J Health Dispar Res Pract       Date:  2013

10.  The relationship between living arrangement and preventive care use among community-dwelling elderly persons.

Authors:  Denys T Lau; James B Kirby
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 9.308

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.