Literature DB >> 15066928

On-schedule mammography rescreening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

Janet Kay Bobo1, Jean A Shapiro, Jane Schulman, Charles L Wolters.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides free cancer screening to many low-income, underinsured women annually but does not routinely collect all data necessary for precise estimation of mammography rescreening rates among enrollees.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine the percentages rescreened and to identify factors that encourage on-schedule rescreening, telephone interview and medical record data were collected from 1685 enrollees in Maryland, New York, Ohio, and Texas at least 30 months after their 1997 index mammogram.
RESULTS: Overall, 72.4% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 70.1-74.7] were rescreened within 18 months and 81.5% (95% CI = 79.6-83.5) within 30 months. At 30 months, the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for rescreening were higher among Hispanics (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.15-3.28), women with a history of breast cancer before the index mammogram (OR = 3.36, 95% CI = 1.07-10.53), and those who had used hormone replacement therapy before their index mammogram (OR =1.94, 95% CI = 1.30-2.91). The 30-month adjusted ORs were lower for women who reported poor health status (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.42-0.85), did not have a usual source of care (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.40-0.94), did not know if they could have another free mammogram (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.14-0.51), described their index screen as their first mammogram ever (OR for no prior mammograms versus three or more = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.27-0.60), did not recall receiving a rescreening reminder (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.25-0.48), or did not think they had been encouraged to rescreen by their provider (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.44-0.86). DISCUSSION: Rescreening behavior in this sample of NBCCEDP enrollees was comparable with that observed in other populations. To facilitate routine rescreening among low-income women, ongoing efforts are needed to ensure that they receive annual reminders and encouragements from their medical providers and that they know how to obtain the services they need.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15066928

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  22 in total

1.  Concordance of population-based estimates of mammography screening.

Authors:  Denise M Boudreau; Casey L Luce; Evette Ludman; Amy E Bonomi; Paul A Fishman
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2007-07-17       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  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

3.  The demographic, system, and psychosocial origins of mammographic screening disparities: prediction of initiation versus maintenance screening among immigrant and non-immigrant women.

Authors:  Nathan S Consedine
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2012-08

4.  It's the amount of thought that counts: when ambivalence contributes to mammography screening delay.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Isaac M Lipkus; Jennifer M Gierisch; Barbara K Rimer; J Michael Bowling
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2011-11-03

5.  Longitudinal predictors of nonadherence to maintenance of mammography.

Authors:  Jennifer M Gierisch; Jo Anne Earp; Noel T Brewer; Barbara K Rimer
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Factors influencing adherence to mammography screening guidelines in Appalachian women participating in a mobile mammography program.

Authors:  Ami Vyas; Suresh Madhavan; Traci LeMasters; Elvonna Atkins; Sara Gainor; Stephenie Kennedy; Kimberly Kelly; Linda Vona-Davis; Scot Remick
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2012-06

7.  Efforts to locate low-income women for a study on mammography rescreening: implications for public health practice.

Authors:  Janet Kay Bobo; Jean A Shapiro; Jennifer Brustrom
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2006-06

8.  A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Cervical Cancer Education Intervention for Latinas Delivered Through Interactive, Multimedia Kiosks.

Authors:  Armando Valdez; Anna M Napoles; Susan L Stewart; Alvaro Garza
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.037

9.  Timeliness of breast cancer diagnosis and initiation of treatment in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1996-2005.

Authors:  Lisa C Richardson; Janet Royalty; William Howe; William Helsel; William Kammerer; Vicki B Benard
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Mammography screening of women in their 40s: impact of changes in screening guidelines.

Authors:  Lisa Calvocoressi; Albert Sun; Stanislav V Kasl; Elizabeth B Claus; Beth A Jones
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.