BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is frequently diagnosed after an abnormal mammography result. Language barriers can complicate communication of those results. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the association of non-English language with delay in follow-up. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of women at 3 mammography facilities participating in the San Francisco Mammography Registry with an abnormal mammogram result from 1997 to 2008. We measured median time from report of abnormal result to first follow-up test. RESULTS: Of 13,014 women with 16,109 abnormal mammograms, 4027 (31%) had a non-English patient language. Clinical facilities differed in proportion of non-English speakers and in time to first follow-up test: facility A (38%; 25 d), facility B (18%; 14 d), and facility C (51%; 41 d). Most mammography examinations (67%) had breast imaging and reporting data system 0 (incomplete) assessment, requiring radiographic follow-up. At 30 days of follow-up, 67% of all English speakers with incomplete assessments had a follow-up examination compared with 50% of all non-English speakers (P<0.0001). The facility with the least delay and the lowest proportion of non-English speakers, had the biggest difference by language; compared with English speakers and adjusting for education, non-English speakers had twice the odds ratio of >30-day delay in follow-up (odds ratio=2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.9). CONCLUSIONS: There are considerable differences among facilities in delays in diagnostic follow-up of abnormal mammography results. More attention must be paid to understanding mammography facility factors, such as wait time to schedule diagnostic mammography and radiology workload, to improve rates of timely follow-up, particularly for those facilities disproportionately serving vulnerable non-English speaking patients.
BACKGROUND:Breast cancer is frequently diagnosed after an abnormal mammography result. Language barriers can complicate communication of those results. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the association of non-English language with delay in follow-up. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of women at 3 mammography facilities participating in the San Francisco Mammography Registry with an abnormal mammogram result from 1997 to 2008. We measured median time from report of abnormal result to first follow-up test. RESULTS: Of 13,014 women with 16,109 abnormal mammograms, 4027 (31%) had a non-English patient language. Clinical facilities differed in proportion of non-English speakers and in time to first follow-up test: facility A (38%; 25 d), facility B (18%; 14 d), and facility C (51%; 41 d). Most mammography examinations (67%) had breast imaging and reporting data system 0 (incomplete) assessment, requiring radiographic follow-up. At 30 days of follow-up, 67% of all English speakers with incomplete assessments had a follow-up examination compared with 50% of all non-English speakers (P<0.0001). The facility with the least delay and the lowest proportion of non-English speakers, had the biggest difference by language; compared with English speakers and adjusting for education, non-English speakers had twice the odds ratio of >30-day delay in follow-up (odds ratio=2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.9). CONCLUSIONS: There are considerable differences among facilities in delays in diagnostic follow-up of abnormal mammography results. More attention must be paid to understanding mammography facility factors, such as wait time to schedule diagnostic mammography and radiology workload, to improve rates of timely follow-up, particularly for those facilities disproportionately serving vulnerable non-English speaking patients.
Authors: William E Barlow; Constance D Lehman; Yingye Zheng; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Gary R Cutter; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Robert Rosenberg; Karla Kerlikowske; Donald L Weaver; Stephen H Taplin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-08-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Karin Gwyn; Melissa L Bondy; Deborah S Cohen; Mary Jo Lund; Jonathan M Liff; Elaine W Flagg; Louise A Brinton; J William Eley; Ralph J Coates Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jon F Kerner; Michael Yedidia; Deborah Padgett; Barbara Muth; Kathleen Shakira Washington; Mariella Tefft; K Robin Yabroff; Erini Makariou; Harold Freeman; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: Prev Med Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Jane G Zapka; Elaine Puleo; Stephen H Taplin; Karin Valentine Goins; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Judy Mouchawar; Carol Somkin; M Michele Manos Journal: Prev Med Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Eric G Poon; Jennifer S Haas; Ann Louise Puopolo; Tejal K Gandhi; Elisabeth Burdick; David W Bates; Troyen A Brennan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sophie Lebel; Gabriela Jakubovits; Zeev Rosberger; Carmen Loiselle; Carole Seguin; Catherine Cornaz; Jan Ingram; Linda August; Andre Lisbona Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Jazmine D Kenny; Leah S Karliner; Karla Kerlikowske; Celia P Kaplan; Ana Fernandez-Lamothe; Nancy J Burke Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Anna N A Tosteson; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jasmin Tiro; Jane Kim; Anne Marie McCarthy; Virginia P Quinn; V Paul Doria-Rose; Cosette M Wheeler; William E Barlow; Mackenzie Bronson; Michael Garcia; Douglas A Corley; Jennifer S Haas; Ethan A Halm; Aruna Kamineni; Carolyn M Rutter; Tor D Tosteson; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Donald L Weaver Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Michelle L Kurta; Rory C Weier; Greg S Young; Autumn B Carey; Cathy M Tatum; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Christine M Gunn; Amy Fitzpatrick; Sarah Waugh; Michelle Carrera; Nancy R Kressin; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Elyse R Park; Jan E Mutchler; Giselle Perez; Roberta E Goldman; Halsey Niles; Vivian Haime; Cheyenne Fox Tree-McGrath; Mai See Yang; Daniel Woolridge; July Suarez; Karen Donelan; William F Pirl Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Ruslan Horblyuk; Leah Karliner; Brian L Sprague; Louise Henderson; David Lee; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Alison Sweet Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-03-08 Impact factor: 4.872