Literature DB >> 12543627

Validity of self-reported mammography: examining recall and covariates among older women in a Health Maintenance Organization.

Lee S Caplan1, Margaret T Mandelson, Lynda A Anderson.   

Abstract

Self-reports of screening are frequently used in place of chart abstraction, particularly in outpatient settings, because they are generally less expensive and frequently provide the only information available. The authors expanded the literature on validation of self-reported mammography by including the validity of recall and by assessing covariates in a setting where women were examined more than once. In 1995, this study validated mammography use in a sample of 949 women aged 50-80 years who were members of a health maintenance organization with centralized automated records of mammographic examinations. The majority of women had had a mammogram within the previous 2 years according to self-reports and records, but self-reported rates exceeded record rates by 8.2%. Sensitivity was high (93.8%), whereas specificity was low (53.6%). The overall agreement between self-reports and records was 82.7%. The kappa value was 0.52, indicating fair agreement beyond chance. Modeling with logistic regression revealed that being a college graduate and having a first-degree relative with breast cancer were significantly associated with accurate recall. Comparison of actual time interval data revealed that disagreements consisted largely of women's underestimates of time since their last screening. These results add to knowledge about the validity of self-reported mammographic screening data in settings where women are screened more than once.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12543627     DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwf202

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  26 in total

1.  Testing a culturally appropriate, theory-based intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening among Native Hawaiians.

Authors:  Kathryn L Braun; Megan Fong; Momi E Kaanoi; Martina L Kamaka; Carolyn C Gotay
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  Bias associated with self-report of prior screening mammography.

Authors:  Kathleen A Cronin; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Binbing Yu; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Tracy Onega; Eric J Feuer; Nancy Breen; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Validating self-reported mammography use in vulnerable communities: findings and recommendations.

Authors:  Kristi L Allgood; Garth H Rauscher; Steven Whitman; Giselle Vasquez-Jones; Ami M Shah
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-05-23       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Socioeconomic status and cancer screening in Japanese males: Large inequlaity in middle-aged and urban residents.

Authors:  Yoshiharu Fukuda; Keiko Nakamura; Takehito Takano; Hiroyuki Nakao; Hirohisa Imai
Journal:  Environ Health Prev Med       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.674

5.  Antidepressant utilization in Canada.

Authors:  Cynthia A Beck; Scott B Patten; Jeanne V A Williams; Jian Li Wang; Shawn R Currie; Colleen J Maxwell; Nady El-Guebaly
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.328

6.  Are We Choosing Wisely? Older Adults' Cancer Screening Intentions and Recalled Discussions with Physicians About Stopping.

Authors:  Ashwin A Kotwal; Louise C Walter; Sei J Lee; William Dale
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-05-30       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Health beliefs and illness perceptions as related to mammography uptake in randomly selected women in Greece.

Authors:  Fotios Anagnostopoulos; Christine Dimitrakaki; Deborah Fitzsimmons; Gregory Potamianos; Dimitris Niakas; Yannis Tountas
Journal:  J Clin Psychol Med Settings       Date:  2012-06

8.  Targeting of mammography screening according to life expectancy in women aged 75 and older.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Erica S Breslau; Ellen P McCarthy
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 5.562

9.  Cholesterol screening for women: who is "at-risk"?

Authors:  Cheryl L Robbins; Patricia M Dietz; Shanna Cox; Elena V Kuklina
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 2.681

10.  Self-report versus medical records for assessing cancer-preventive services delivery.

Authors:  Jeanne M Ferrante; Pamela Ohman-Strickland; Karissa A Hahn; Shawna V Hudson; Eric K Shaw; Jesse C Crosson; Benjamin F Crabtree
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.254

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.