Literature DB >> 20303844

Prevalence and correlates of recent and repeat mammography among California women ages 55-79.

William Rakowski1, Roberta Wyn, Nancy Breen, Helen Meissner, Melissa A Clark.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Data on repeat mammography rates are less available than for recent screening. Two large, population-based state surveys provide the opportunity to investigate repeat and recent mammography prevalence and correlates among California's diverse population.
METHODS: Data were from women aged 55-79, using the 2001 and 2005 California Health Interview Surveys. The study assessed the prevalence and correlates of recent mammography (within the past two years) and repeat mammography (mammogram within the past two years and 3-11 mammograms within the past six years).
RESULTS: Prevalence was 82.4% (recent) and 73.8% (repeat) in 2001, and 87.1% (recent) and 77.5% (repeat) in 2005. Correlates of lower rates were insurance status, no usual source of care, being a smoker, age 65-79, being Asian with no English proficiency, being never married, and lower absolute risk for breast cancer. Especially low ratios of repeat-to-recent mammography existed for the uninsured, and those using the emergency room or with no source of care. Unexpected findings in which unadjusted results were inconsistent with multivariable adjusted results occurred for Latinas with no English proficiency and women at 200-299% of poverty level.
CONCLUSIONS: Several groups of women in California remain at-risk of lower mammography utilization. However, investigators should also be alert for instances where multivariable analyses seem particularly discrepant with crude rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20303844      PMCID: PMC2862550          DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2010.02.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol        ISSN: 1877-7821            Impact factor:   2.984


  28 in total

1.  The effectiveness of mammography promotion by volunteers in rural communities.

Authors:  M R Andersen; Y Yasui; H Meischke; A Kuniyuki; R Etzioni; N Urban
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 5.043

2.  5-Year mammography rates and associated factors for older women.

Authors:  R Van Harrison; Nancy K Janz; Robert A Wolfe; Philip J Tedeschi; Xuelin Huang; Laurence F McMahon
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-03-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Utilization of screening mammography in New Hampshire: a population-based assessment.

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

4.  Relationships among objective and subjective risk for breast cancer and mammography stages of change.

Authors:  I M Lipkus; B K Rimer; T S Strigo
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Estimates of the number of US women who could benefit from tamoxifen for breast cancer chemoprevention.

Authors:  Andrew N Freedman; Barry I Graubard; Sowmya R Rao; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Mitchell H Gail
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-04-02       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter?

Authors:  R M Andersen
Journal:  J Health Soc Behav       Date:  1995-03

7.  Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence.

Authors:  J P Costantino; M H Gail; D Pee; S Anderson; C K Redmond; J Benichou; H S Wieand
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-09-15       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  A multilevel study of socioeconomic predictors of regular mammography use among African-American women.

Authors:  Lynn Rosenberg; Lauren A Wise; Julie R Palmer; Nicholas J Horton; Lucile L Adams-Campbell
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  The effect of a stage-matched and tailored intervention on repeat mammography(1).

Authors:  Melissa A Clark; William Rakowski; Beverly Ehrich; Barbara K Rimer; Wayne F Velicer; Catherine E Dube; Deborah N Pearlman; Kristen K Peterson; Michael Goldstein
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  Reminder letter, tailored stepped-care, and self-choice comparison for repeat mammography.

Authors:  William Rakowski; Isaac M Lipkus; Melissa A Clark; Barbara K Rimer; Beverly Ehrich; Pauline R Lyna; Phyllis J Kornguth
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.043

View more
  7 in total

1.  Different effects of multiple health status indicators on breast and colorectal cancer screening in a nationally representative US sample.

Authors:  Anjali D Deshpande; Amy McQueen; Elliot J Coups
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 2.984

2.  Disparities in mammography rate among immigrant and native-born women in the U.S.: progress and challenges.

Authors:  Nengliang Yao; Marianne M Hillemeier
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2014-08

3.  Prevalence and Determinants of Repeat Mammography Among Women from a Developing Country.

Authors:  Ana María Salinas-Martínez; Jimena Estefanía Gaspar-Rivera; Oscar Juárez-Pérez; José Roberto Montañez-Sauceda; Georgina Mayela Núñez-Rocha; Francisco Javier Guzmán-de-la-Garza; Álvaro Mathiew-Quirós
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2017-04

Review 4.  Opportunities and challenges for the use of large-scale surveys in public health research: a comparison of the assessment of cancer screening behaviors.

Authors:  Jada G Hamilton; Nancy Breen; Carrie N Klabunde; Richard P Moser; Bryan Leyva; Erica S Breslau; Sarah C Kobrin
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  What factors explain disparities in mammography rates among Asian-American immigrant women? A population-based study in California.

Authors:  So Yeon Ryu; Catherine M Crespi; Annette E Maxwell
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec

6.  The relationship of social support concept and repeat mammography among Iranian women.

Authors:  Fariba Farhadifar; Parvaneh Taymoori; Mitra Bahrami; Shamsy Zarea
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2015-10-24       Impact factor: 2.809

7.  Women with abnormal screening mammography lost to follow-up: An experience from Taiwan.

Authors:  Chia-Sheng Kuo; Guan-Ru Chen; Shou-Hung Hung; Yi-Lien Liu; Kuo-Chin Huang; Shao-Yi Cheng
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.889

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.