Literature DB >> 19205911

Mammography facilities are accessible, so why is utilization so low?

Lee R Mobley1, Tzy-Mey May Kuo, Laurel J Clayton, W Douglas Evans.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study examines new socio-ecological variables reflecting community context as predictors of mammography use.
METHODS: The conceptual model is a hybrid of traditional health-behavioral and socio-ecological constructs with an emphasis on spatial interaction among women and their environments, differentiating between several levels of influence for community context. Multilevel probability models of mammography use are estimated. The study sample includes 70,129 women with traditional Medicare fee-for-service coverage for inpatient and outpatient services, drawn from the SEER-Medicare linked data. The study population lives in heterogeneous California, where mammography facilities are dense but utilization rates are low.
RESULTS: Several contextual effects have large significant impacts on the probability of mammography use. Women living in areas with higher proportions of elderly in poverty are 33% less likely to use mammography. However, dually eligible women living in these poor areas are 2% more likely to use mammography than those without extra assistance living in these areas. Living in areas with higher commuter intensity, higher violent crime rates, greater land use mix (urbanicity), or more segregated Hispanic communities exhibit -14%, -1%, -6%, and -3% (lower) probability of use, respectively. Women living in segregated American Indian communities or in communities where more elderly women live alone exhibit 16% and 12% (higher) probability of use, respectively. Minority women living in more segregated communities by their minority are more likely to use mammography, suggesting social support, but this is significant for Native Americans only. Women with disability as their original reason for entitlement are found 40% more likely to use mammography when they reside in communities with high commuter intensity, suggesting greater ease of transportation for them in these environments.
CONCLUSIONS: Socio-ecological variables reflecting community context are important predictors of mammography use in insured elderly populations, often with larger magnitudes of effect than personal characteristics such as race or ethnicity (-3% to -7%), age (-2%), recent address change (-7%), disability (-5%) or dual eligibility status (-1%). Better understanding of community factors can enhance cancer control efforts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19205911      PMCID: PMC2694850          DOI: 10.1007/s10552-009-9295-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Causes Control        ISSN: 0957-5243            Impact factor:   2.506


  44 in total

1.  Effect of distance and social disadvantage on the response to invitations to attend mammography screening.

Authors:  J C Hyndman; C D Holman; V P Dawes
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.136

2.  Variations in geographical distribution of foreign and domestically trained physicians in the United States: 'safety nets' or 'surplus exacerbation'?

Authors:  S S Mick; S Y Lee; W P Wodchis
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  Breast and cervix cancer screening among multiethnic women: role of age, health, and source of care.

Authors:  J S Mandelblatt; K Gold; A S O'Malley; K Taylor; K Cagney; J S Hopkins; J Kerner
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  Managed care, consolidation among health care providers, and health care: evidence from mammography.

Authors:  L C Baker; M L Brown
Journal:  Rand J Econ       Date:  1999

5.  Differences in breast cancer screening rates: an issue of ethnicity or socioeconomics?

Authors:  M Qureshi; H L Thacker; D G Litaker; C Kippes
Journal:  J Womens Health Gend Based Med       Date:  2000-11

6.  Factors that may discourage annual mammography among low-income women with access to free mammograms: a study using multi-ethnic, multiracial focus groups.

Authors:  J K Bobo; D Dean; C Stovall; M Mendez; L Caplan
Journal:  Psychol Rep       Date:  1999-10

7.  Access to care for the uninsured: is access to a physician enough?

Authors:  A G Mainous; W J Hueston; M M Love; C H Griffith
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Stage at diagnosis and treatment patterns among older women with breast cancer: an HMO and fee-for-service comparison.

Authors:  G F Riley; A L Potosky; C N Klabunde; J L Warren; R Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-02-24       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Relocation of a static breast screening unit: a study of factors affecting attendance.

Authors:  A J Maxwell
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.136

10.  Influence of health care, cost, and culture on breast cancer screening: issues facing urban American Indian women.

Authors:  B Risendal; D Roe; J DeZapien; M Papenfuss; A Giuliano
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.018

View more
  26 in total

1.  Declining mammography screening in a state Medicaid Fee-for-Service program: 1999-2008.

Authors:  Abhijeet Bhanegaonkar; S Suresh Madhavan; Rahul Khanna; Scot C Remick
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Breast cancer screening, area deprivation, and later-stage breast cancer in Appalachia: does geography matter?

Authors:  Roger T Anderson; Tse-Chang Yang; Stephen A Matthews; Fabian Camacho; Teresa Kern; Heath B Mackley; Gretchen Kimmick; Christopher Louis; Eugene Lengerich; Nengliang Yao
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Breast and cervical cancer screening patterns among American Indian women at IHS clinics in Montana and Wyoming.

Authors:  Robin Taylor Wilson; Jennifer Giroux; Kathryn Rita Kasicky; Bethany Hemlock Fatupaito; Eric C Wood; Renee Crichlow; Neil A Sun Rhodes; Jennifer Tingueley; Andrea Walling; Kathryn Langwell; Nathaniel Cobb
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.792

4.  Mammography utilization among Black and White Medicare beneficiaries in high breast cancer mortality US counties.

Authors:  Mandeep K Virk-Baker; Michelle Y Martin; Robert S Levine; Xin Wang; Tim R Nagy; Maria Pisu
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.506

5.  Breast Cancer Screening in Women With Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Alison Hwong; Kara Wang; Stephen Bent; Christina Mangurian
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 3.084

6.  The relationship between county-level contextual characteristics and use of diabetes care services.

Authors:  Huabin Luo; Gloria L A Beckles; Xinzhi Zhang; Sergey Sotnikov; Ted Thompson; Barbara Bardenheier
Journal:  J Public Health Manag Pract       Date:  2014 Jul-Aug

7.  Travel Burden to Breast MRI and Utilization: Are Risk and Sociodemographics Related?

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Christoph I Lee; David Benkeser; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Deirdre Hill; Xun Shi; Louise M Henderson; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 5.532

8.  Using residential segregation to predict colorectal cancer stage at diagnosis: two different approaches.

Authors:  Lee R Mobley; Lia Scott; Yamisha Rutherford; Tzy-Mey Kuo
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 3.797

9.  Disparities in breast cancer treatment and outcomes: biological, social, and health system determinants and opportunities for research.

Authors:  Stephanie B Wheeler; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Lisa A Carey
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2013-08-12

10.  Predictors of endoscopic colorectal cancer screening over time in 11 states.

Authors:  Lee Mobley; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Matthew Urato; John Boos; Nancy Lozano-Gracia; Luc Anselin
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2009-11-28       Impact factor: 2.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.