Literature DB >> 15963167

Poor patient comprehension of abnormal mammography results.

Leah S Karliner1, Celia Patricia Kaplan, Teresa Juarbe, Rena Pasick, Eliseo J Pérez-Stable.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Screening mammography for women 50 to 69 years of age may lead to 50% having an abnormal study. We set out to determine the proportion of women who understand their abnormal mammogram results and the factors that predict understanding.
METHODS: We surveyed 970 women age 40 to 80 years identified with abnormal mammograms from 4 clinical sites. We collected information on demographic factors, language of interview, consultation with a primary care physician, receipt of follow-up tests, and method of notification of index mammogram result. This study examines the following outcomes: the participant's report of understanding of her physician's explanation of results of the index mammogram, and a comparison of the radiology report to the participant's report of her index mammogram result. Multivariate models controlled for age, education, income, insurance status, and clinical site.
RESULTS: The majority (70%) reported a "full understanding" of their physician's explanation of their abnormal mammogram, but a significant minority (30%) reported less than a full understanding (somewhat, not at all, did not explain). Among women of Asian ethnicity, only 63% reported full understanding. Asian ethnicity was a negative predictor (odds ratio [OR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3 to 0.7), and consultation with a primary care physician was a positive predictor (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3) of reported full understanding. Of the 304 women with a suspicious abnormality, only 51% understood their result to be abnormal. Women notified in person or by telephone were more likely than women notified in writing to understand their result to be abnormal (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.8).
CONCLUSION: Almost half of women with the most suspicious mammograms did not understand that their result was abnormal. Our data suggest that direct communication with a clinician in person or by phone improves comprehension.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15963167      PMCID: PMC1490112          DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40281.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  25 in total

Review 1.  Assessing the risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  K Armstrong; A Eisen; B Weber
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-02-24       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Correlates of breast cancer screening among low-income, low-education Latinas.

Authors:  A Valdez; K Banerjee; L Ackerson; M Fernandez; R Otero-Sabogal; C P Somkin
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  Uncovering factors contributing to under-utilization of breast cancer screening by Chinese and Korean women living in the United States.

Authors:  Mei-Yu Yu; Oi-Saeng Hong; Amy D Seetoo
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 1.847

4.  Resolving the gatekeeper conundrum: what patients value in primary care and referrals to specialists.

Authors:  K Grumbach; J V Selby; C Damberg; A B Bindman; C Quesenberry; A Truman; C Uratsu
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-07-21       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Communicating results of diagnostic mammography: what do patients think?

Authors:  K S Levin; M P Braeuning; M S O'Malley; E D Pisano; E D Barrett; J A Earp
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Cultural barriers to mammography, clinical breast exam, and breast self-exam among Chinese-American women 60 and older.

Authors:  T S Tang; L J Solomon; L M McCracken
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  Are risk factors for breast cancer associated with follow-up procedures in diverse women with abnormal mammography?

Authors:  Teresa C Juarbe; Celia Patricia Kaplan; Carol P Somkin; Rena Pasick; Ginny Gildengorin; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.506

8.  Realizing the promise of breast cancer screening: clinical follow-up after abnormal screening among Black women.

Authors:  Jon F Kerner; Michael Yedidia; Deborah Padgett; Barbara Muth; Kathleen Shakira Washington; Mariella Tefft; K Robin Yabroff; Erini Makariou; Harold Freeman; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 9.  Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Britt-Marie Ljung; Deborah Grady
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-08-19       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Communication factors in the follow-up of abnormal mammograms.

Authors:  Eric G Poon; Jennifer S Haas; Ann Louise Puopolo; Tejal K Gandhi; Elisabeth Burdick; David W Bates; Troyen A Brennan
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.128

View more
  25 in total

1.  Urban women's preferences for learning of their mammogram result: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Erin N Marcus; Darlene Drummond; Noella Dietz
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Conversations about Abnormal Mammograms on Distress and Timely Follow-up Across Ethnicity.

Authors:  Yamile Molina; Shirley A A Beresford; Tara Hayes Constant; Beti Thompson
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  Populations at risk: a critical need for research, funding, and action.

Authors:  Marshall H Chin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Organization Communication Factors and Abnormal Mammogram Follow-up: a Qualitative Study Among Ethnically Diverse Women Across Three Healthcare Systems.

Authors:  Jazmine D Kenny; Leah S Karliner; Karla Kerlikowske; Celia P Kaplan; Ana Fernandez-Lamothe; Nancy J Burke
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Racial/ethnic disparities in time to follow-up after an abnormal mammogram.

Authors:  Rebecca Press; Olveen Carrasquillo; Robert R Sciacca; Elsa-Grace V Giardina
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  What do you mean, a spot?: A qualitative analysis of patients' reactions to discussions with their physicians about pulmonary nodules.

Authors:  Renda Soylemez Wiener; Michael K Gould; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Jack A Clark
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 9.410

7.  What influences diagnostic delay in low-income women with breast cancer?

Authors:  Rose C Maly; Barbara Leake; Cynthia M Mojica; Yihang Liu; Allison L Diamant; Amardeep Thind
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 2.681

8.  Influence of false-positive mammography results on subsequent screening: do physician recommendations buffer negative effects?

Authors:  Jessica T DeFrank; Barbara K Rimer; J Michael Bowling; Jo Anne Earp; Erica S Breslau; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.136

9.  How do breast imaging centers communicate results to women with limited English proficiency and other barriers to care?

Authors:  Erin N Marcus; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Feng Miao; Monica Yepes; Lee Sanders
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2014-06

10.  A Qualitative Study of Spanish-Speakers' Experience with Dense Breast Notifications in a Massachusetts Safety-Net Hospital.

Authors:  Christine M Gunn; Amy Fitzpatrick; Sarah Waugh; Michelle Carrera; Nancy R Kressin; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Tracy A Battaglia
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.