PURPOSE: To prospectively survey the preferences of an underserved and predominantly minority population of women regarding their understanding of screening mammography, desire for recall and early detection, and willingness to continue with annual screening mammography once given a false-positive result. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1011 women who were going to undergo mammography completed a HIPAA-compliant, Institutional Review Board-approved, validated survey in one of three languages: English, Spanish, or Haitian-Creole. Data were analyzed across three groups (ie, white, black, Hispanic) by using chi(2) analysis. RESULTS: Of 911 women included in the final analysis, 378 (41%) were white, 439 (48%) were black, and 94 (10%) were Hispanic. Income and education levels varied significantly across ethnicities (P < .0001). A higher percentage of white women (40%) correctly identified the sensitivity of mammography (P < .0001), while black (42%) and Hispanic (50%) participants thought mammography to have a higher sensitivity than it truly does. After a false-positive result, only 80% of black women and 71% of Hispanic women were likely to continue with screening in the future, compared with 93% of white women (P < .0001). Only 54% of black women and 59% of Hispanic women were willing to return for a second noninvasive procedure despite the possibility of a higher cancer detection rate, compared with 76% of white women (P < .0001). Black women (53%) were also more reluctant to be recalled for invasive studies, and Hispanic women (65%) were slightly less willing to take this risk than were white women (75%) (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Differences in ethnic background appear to influence women's understanding of mammography, compliance with recall, and preference for early detection of breast cancer. RSNA, 2008
PURPOSE: To prospectively survey the preferences of an underserved and predominantly minority population of women regarding their understanding of screening mammography, desire for recall and early detection, and willingness to continue with annual screening mammography once given a false-positive result. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1011 women who were going to undergo mammography completed a HIPAA-compliant, Institutional Review Board-approved, validated survey in one of three languages: English, Spanish, or Haitian-Creole. Data were analyzed across three groups (ie, white, black, Hispanic) by using chi(2) analysis. RESULTS: Of 911 women included in the final analysis, 378 (41%) were white, 439 (48%) were black, and 94 (10%) were Hispanic. Income and education levels varied significantly across ethnicities (P < .0001). A higher percentage of white women (40%) correctly identified the sensitivity of mammography (P < .0001), while black (42%) and Hispanic (50%) participants thought mammography to have a higher sensitivity than it truly does. After a false-positive result, only 80% of black women and 71% of Hispanic women were likely to continue with screening in the future, compared with 93% of white women (P < .0001). Only 54% of black women and 59% of Hispanic women were willing to return for a second noninvasive procedure despite the possibility of a higher cancer detection rate, compared with 76% of white women (P < .0001). Black women (53%) were also more reluctant to be recalled for invasive studies, and Hispanic women (65%) were slightly less willing to take this risk than were white women (75%) (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Differences in ethnic background appear to influence women's understanding of mammography, compliance with recall, and preference for early detection of breast cancer. RSNA, 2008
Authors: Alecia Malin Fair; Debra Wujcik; Jin-Mann Sally Lin; Wei Zheng; Kathleen M Egan; Ana M Grau; Victoria L Champion; Kenneth A Wallston Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2010-02
Authors: Julie M Kapp; Rod Walker; Sebastien Haneuse; Diana S M Buist; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Julia E McGuinness; William Ueng; Meghna S Trivedi; Hae Seung Yi; Raven David; Alejandro Vanegas; Jennifer Vargas; Rossy Sandoval; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jan Norum; Solveig Hofvind; Carsten Nieder; Edrun Andrea Schnell; Ann Ragnhild Broderstad Journal: Int J Circumpolar Health Date: 2012-04-16 Impact factor: 1.228
Authors: Nila Alsheik; Linda Blount; Qiu Qiong; Melinda Talley; Scott Pohlman; Kathleen Troeger; Genevieve Abbey; Victoria L Mango; Erica Pollack; Alice Chong; Greg Donadio; Michael Behling; Kathleen Mortimer; Emily Conant Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 6.240