OBJECTIVE: To evaluate woman-level characteristics associated with timing of follow-up after abnormal mammograms in an integrated healthcare system with an active breast health program. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: The study included women aged 40-84 years who had an abnormal mammogram (20,060 screening and 3184 diagnostic) recommended for follow-up. We compared characteristics of women who received any follow-up evaluation within <7, 8 to 14, 15 to 21, and 22 to 180 days. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using multivariate ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: The proportion of women seeking care within 7 days was 23% for screening and 69% for diagnostic mammograms. Characteristics associated with later follow-up (>8 days vs <7 days) after an abnormal screening mammogram included being older (OR=1.15; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26 [age 70-79 years]; OR=1.31; 95% CI, 1.14-1.51 [age 80+ years]), Asian (OR=1.18; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33), or having a college degree (OR=1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19). Characteristics associated with earlier follow-up included family history of breast cancer (OR=0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98), symptoms at time of mammogram (OR=0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88), or extremely dense breasts (OR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96). For diagnostic mammograms, symptoms at time of mammogram (OR=0.47; 95% CI, 0.39-0.56) and being obese (OR=0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.98) were associated with earlier follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Several woman-level characteristics were associated with timely follow-up after an abnormal screening exam, but only presence of symptoms and being obese was associated with timely follow-up after an abnormal diagnostic exam.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate woman-level characteristics associated with timing of follow-up after abnormal mammograms in an integrated healthcare system with an active breast health program. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: The study included women aged 40-84 years who had an abnormal mammogram (20,060 screening and 3184 diagnostic) recommended for follow-up. We compared characteristics of women who received any follow-up evaluation within <7, 8 to 14, 15 to 21, and 22 to 180 days. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using multivariate ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: The proportion of women seeking care within 7 days was 23% for screening and 69% for diagnostic mammograms. Characteristics associated with later follow-up (>8 days vs <7 days) after an abnormal screening mammogram included being older (OR=1.15; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26 [age 70-79 years]; OR=1.31; 95% CI, 1.14-1.51 [age 80+ years]), Asian (OR=1.18; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33), or having a college degree (OR=1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19). Characteristics associated with earlier follow-up included family history of breast cancer (OR=0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98), symptoms at time of mammogram (OR=0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88), or extremely dense breasts (OR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96). For diagnostic mammograms, symptoms at time of mammogram (OR=0.47; 95% CI, 0.39-0.56) and being obese (OR=0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.98) were associated with earlier follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Several woman-level characteristics were associated with timely follow-up after an abnormal screening exam, but only presence of symptoms and being obese was associated with timely follow-up after an abnormal diagnostic exam.
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; Laura Ichikawa; Diana S M Buist; Deborah Seger; Emily White Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.254
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: Ellen A Schur; Joann E Elmore; Tracy Onega; Karen J Wernli; Edward A Sickles; Sebastien Haneuse Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Danielle D Durham; Whitney R Robinson; Sheila S Lee; Stephanie B Wheeler; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; J Michael Bowling; Andrew F Olshan; Louise M Henderson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Elaine C Khoong; Natalie A Rivadeneira; Lucia Pacca; Dean Schillinger; David Lown; Palav Babaria; Neha Gupta; Rajiv Pramanik; Helen Tran; Tyler Whitezell; Ma Somsouk; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Richard G Roetzheim; Ji-Hyun Lee; Ercilia R Calcano; Cathy D Meade; William J Fulp; Kristen J Wells Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2012-08
Authors: Syed Yaser Habeeb; Kinwah Fung; Hadas D Fischer; Peter C Austin; Lawrence Paszat; Lorraine L Lipscombe Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Philippa H Youl; Joanne F Aitken; Gavin Turrell; Suzanne K Chambers; Jeffrey Dunn; Christopher Pyke; Peter D Baade Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-11-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ji-Hyun Lee; William Fulp; Kristen J Wells; Cathy D Meade; Ercilia Calcano; Richard Roetzheim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 3.240