Literature DB >> 15193895

Measuring adherence to mammography screening recommendations among low-income women.

Katrina Armstrong1, Judith A Long, Judy A Shea.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: (1) To describe the accuracy of self-report and administrative claims for measuring mammography adherence among low-income women; (2) to determine whether the accuracy of self-report differed between telephone interview and mailed questionnaire; and (3) to explore whether the method of measuring adherence affected associations between mammography adherence and participant sociodemographic characteristics.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of women receiving care from a Philadelphia Medicaid Managed Care Organization (MCO). PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and ninety-nine low-income women eligible for screening mammography of whom 64% were African American, 14% Caucasian, 13% Hispanic, and 8% Asian American. MEASURES: Self-reported use of mammography screening, administrative mammography claims data, and dates of mammograms from radiology facility records. The "gold standard" categorized women as having undergone screening if they had either a billing claim or facility record for a mammogram in the past 12 months. MAIN
RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-three of the 399 women reported having had a mammogram in the past 12 months. The sensitivity of self-report was 0.93, specificity was 0.54, positive predictive value was 0.70, and negative predictive value was 0.86. One hundred and seventy-nine of the 399 women had a claim for a mammogram in the past 12 months. The sensitivity of claims data was 0.83 with a negative predictive value of 0.84. The sensitivity of self-report was higher with telephone data collection (0.98) than with mailed data collection (0.82), while the specificity was higher with mail (0.64) than telephone (0.50). African American race was associated with adherence to screening recommendations when mammography use was measured by self-report (RR 1.31, P = 0.002) but not when it was measured by claims or facility validation (RR 1.03, P = 0.56, and RR 1.12, P = 0.15, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Accurate measurement of adherence to mammography screening among low-income women is difficult. Self-report substantially overestimates adherence (particularly when collected through telephone interviews), while also misclassifying some women who underwent screening as not having been screened (particularly when collected through mailed questionnaires). In contrast, administrative claims data substantially underestimates adherence. Inaccurate measurement of mammography adherence can lead to a biased understanding of the factors associated with adherence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15193895     DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.12.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  19 in total

1.  Disparities in routine breast cancer screening for Medicaid managed care members with a work-limiting disability.

Authors:  Sharada Weir; Heather E Posner; Jianying Zhang; Whitney C Jones; Georgianna Willis; Jeffrey D Baxter; Robin E Clark
Journal:  Medicare Medicaid Res Rev       Date:  2011-11-04

2.  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

3.  Randomized trial of an intervention to improve mammography utilization among a triracial rural population of women.

Authors:  Electra Paskett; Cathy Tatum; Julia Rushing; Robert Michielutte; Ronny Bell; Kristie Long Foley; Marisa Bittoni; Stephanie L Dickinson; Ann Scheck McAlearney; Katherine Reeves
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-09-06       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Do social network characteristics predict mammography screening practices?

Authors:  Jennifer D Allen; Anne M Stoddard; Glorian Sorensen
Journal:  Health Educ Behav       Date:  2007-07-09

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Mammography screening trends: the perspective of African American women born pre/post World War II.

Authors:  Karen Patricia Williams; Athur Mabiso; Yun-Jia Lo; Louis A Penner
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.798

8.  Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method.

Authors:  Jasmin A Tiro; Joanne M Sanders; L Aubree Shay; Caitlin C Murphy; Heidi A Hamann; L Kay Bartholomew; Lara S Savas; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Collecting data by telephone from low-income African Americans.

Authors:  Nancy T Artinian; Doris Denison; Cheryl K Nordstrom
Journal:  Appl Nurs Res       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.257

10.  Perceived risk of breast cancer among Latinas attending community clinics: risk comprehension and relationship with mammography adherence.

Authors:  Kristi D Graves; Elmer Huerta; Jennifer Cullen; Elizabeth Kaufman; Vanessa Sheppard; George Luta; Claudine Isaacs; Marc D Schwartz; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 2.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.