BACKGROUND: Self-reported screening behaviors from national surveys often overestimate screening use, and the amount of overestimation may vary by demographic characteristics. We examine self-report bias in mammography screening rates overall, by age, and by race/ethnicity. METHODS: We use mammography registry data (1999-2000) from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to estimate the validity of self-reported mammography screening collected by two national surveys. First, we compare mammography use from 1999 to 2000 for a geographically defined population (Vermont) with self-reported rates in the prior two years from the 2000 Vermont Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We then use a screening dissemination simulation model to assess estimates of mammography screening from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. RESULTS: Self-report estimates of mammography use in the prior 2 years from the Vermont Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System are 15 to 25 percentage points higher than actual screening rates across age groups. The differences in National Health Interview Survey screening estimates from models are similar for women 40 to 49 and 50 to 59 years and greater than for those 60 to 69, or 70 to 79 (27 and 26 percentage points versus 14, and 14, respectively). Overreporting is highest among African American women (24.4 percentage points) and lowest among Hispanic women (17.9) with non-Hispanic White women in between (19.3). Values of sensitivity and specificity consistent with our results are similar to previous validation studies of mammography. CONCLUSION: Overestimation of self-reported mammography usage from national surveys varies by age and race/ethnicity. A more nuanced approach that accounts for demographic differences is needed when adjusting for overestimation or assessing disparities between populations.
BACKGROUND: Self-reported screening behaviors from national surveys often overestimate screening use, and the amount of overestimation may vary by demographic characteristics. We examine self-report bias in mammography screening rates overall, by age, and by race/ethnicity. METHODS: We use mammography registry data (1999-2000) from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to estimate the validity of self-reported mammography screening collected by two national surveys. First, we compare mammography use from 1999 to 2000 for a geographically defined population (Vermont) with self-reported rates in the prior two years from the 2000 Vermont Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We then use a screening dissemination simulation model to assess estimates of mammography screening from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. RESULTS: Self-report estimates of mammography use in the prior 2 years from the Vermont Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System are 15 to 25 percentage points higher than actual screening rates across age groups. The differences in National Health Interview Survey screening estimates from models are similar for women 40 to 49 and 50 to 59 years and greater than for those 60 to 69, or 70 to 79 (27 and 26 percentage points versus 14, and 14, respectively). Overreporting is highest among African American women (24.4 percentage points) and lowest among Hispanic women (17.9) with non-Hispanic White women in between (19.3). Values of sensitivity and specificity consistent with our results are similar to previous validation studies of mammography. CONCLUSION: Overestimation of self-reported mammography usage from national surveys varies by age and race/ethnicity. A more nuanced approach that accounts for demographic differences is needed when adjusting for overestimation or assessing disparities between populations.
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Martha E Goodrich; Todd Mackenzie; Julia E Weiss; Steven P Poplack; Wendy S Wells; Linda Titus-Ernstoff Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Garth H Rauscher; Timothy P Johnson; Young Ik Cho; Jennifer A Walk Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Stephen J McPhee; Tung T Nguyen; Sarah J Shema; Bang Nguyen; Carol Somkin; Phuong Vo; Rena Pasick Journal: Prev Med Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Berta M Geller; Jessica W T Leung; Robert D Rosenberg; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; A Gabriela Rosales; Jennifer Schneider; Mary M Rix; Russell E Glasgow Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 2.681
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
Authors: Kenyon C Bolton; John L Mace; Pamela M Vacek; Sally D Herschorn; Ted A James; Jeffrey A Tice; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta M Geller; Donald L Weaver; Brian L Sprague Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lorraine Dean; S V Subramanian; David R Williams; Katrina Armstrong; Camille Zubrinsky Charles; Ichiro Kawachi Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Melissa A Clark; Michelle L Rogers; Xiaozhong Wen; Victoria Wilcox; Kate McCarthy-Barnett; Jeanne Panarace; Carol Manning; Susan Allen; William Rakowski Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2009-09-23
Authors: Oguzhan Alagoz; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Mucahit Cevik; Brian L Sprague; Dennis G Fryback; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Mira L Katz; Paul L Reiter; Gregory S Young; Michael L Pennell; Cathy M Tatum; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 4.254