Literature DB >> 22072125

Urban women's preferences for learning of their mammogram result: a qualitative study.

Erin N Marcus1, Darlene Drummond, Noella Dietz.   

Abstract

Research suggests that communication of mammogram results is flawed for many low-income ethnic minority women. This study conducted four focus groups with low-income inner-city minority women (n = 34). The goals of our project were: (1) to elucidate women's experiences learning of their result; (2) to elicit their preferences as to how this communication could be improved; and (3) to gather information to help inform the development of a new tool for communicating mammogram results. Salient themes included dissatisfaction with result communication; difficulty elucidating the meaning of a typical results notification letter; a preference for direct verbal communication of results and for print materials that included pictures, testimonials, and an action plan including a hotline to call with questions; and a strong interest in advance education about the likelihood of having to return for additional follow up. Video and other programs to inform patients before the test about what happens after may improve patient satisfaction and enhance women's understanding of their personal result and follow up plan.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22072125     DOI: 10.1007/s13187-011-0284-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Educ        ISSN: 0885-8195            Impact factor:   2.037


  22 in total

1.  Inadequate follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms: findings from the race differences in screening mammography process study (United States).

Authors:  Beth A Jones; Amy Dailey; Lisa Calvocoressi; Kam Reams; Stanislav V Kasl; Carol Lee; Helen Hsu
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.506

2.  Adequacy of communicating results from screening mammograms to African American and White women.

Authors:  Beth A Jones; Kam Reams; Lisa Calvocoressi; Amy Dailey; Stanislav V Kasl; Nancy M Liston
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2007-01-31       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Racial/ethnic disparities in time to follow-up after an abnormal mammogram.

Authors:  Rebecca Press; Olveen Carrasquillo; Robert R Sciacca; Elsa-Grace V Giardina
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.681

4.  Qualitative analysis: how to begin making sense.

Authors:  W L Miller; B F Crabtree
Journal:  Fam Pract Res J       Date:  1994-09

5.  Mammography result notification letters: are they easy to read and understand?

Authors:  Erin N Marcus; Lee M Sanders; Margaret Pereyra; Yanisa Del Toro; Ada Pat Romilly; Monica Yepes; Monica Webb Hooper; Beth A Jones
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  Realizing the promise of breast cancer screening: clinical follow-up after abnormal screening among Black women.

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

7.  Racial differences in timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography.

Authors:  S W Chang; K Kerlikowske; A Nápoles-Springer; S F Posner; E A Sickles; E J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1996-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.

Authors:  Lisa D Chew; Katharine A Bradley; Edward J Boyko
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.756

9.  Latinas with abnormal breast findings: patient predictors of timely diagnostic resolution.

Authors:  Cynthia M Mojica; Roshan Bastani; Ninez A Ponce; W John Boscardin
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.681

10.  Poor patient comprehension of abnormal mammography results.

Authors:  Leah S Karliner; Celia Patricia Kaplan; Teresa Juarbe; Rena Pasick; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.128

View more
  9 in total

1.  Organization Communication Factors and Abnormal Mammogram Follow-up: a Qualitative Study Among Ethnically Diverse Women Across Three Healthcare Systems.

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

2.  What do you mean, a spot?: A qualitative analysis of patients' reactions to discussions with their physicians about pulmonary nodules.

Authors:  Renda Soylemez Wiener; Michael K Gould; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Jack A Clark
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 9.410

3.  Communication Practices of Mammography Facilities and Timely Follow-up of a Screening Mammogram with a BI-RADS 0 Assessment.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; William E Barlow; Emily F Conant; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Elisabeth F Beaber; Martha Goodrich; Anne Marie McCarthy; Sally D Herschorn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Tory O Harrington; Berta Geller
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Patient vs Clinician Perspectives on Communication About Results of Lung Cancer Screening: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Renda Soylemez Wiener; Jack A Clark; Elisa Koppelman; Rendelle Bolton; Gemmae M Fix; Christopher G Slatore; Hasmeena Kathuria
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2020-05-07       Impact factor: 9.410

5.  Mammography Screening: Gaps in Patient's and Physician's Needs for Shared Decision-Making.

Authors:  Lori L DuBenske; Sarina Schrager; Helene McDowell; Lee G Wilke; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 2.431

6.  Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Time to a Breast Cancer Diagnosis: The Mediating Effects of Health Care Facility Factors.

Authors:  Yamile Molina; Abigail Silva; Garth H Rauscher
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Communicating Test Results from a General Health Check: Preferences from a Discrete Choice Experiment Survey.

Authors:  Åsa Grauman; Mats Hansson; Stefan James; Brett Hauber; Jorien Veldwijk
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Developing a discrete choice experiment in Malawi: eliciting preferences for breast cancer early detection services.

Authors:  Racquel E Kohler; Clara N Lee; Satish Gopal; Bryce B Reeve; Bryan J Weiner; Stephanie B Wheeler
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 2.711

Review 9.  Communication of cancer screening results by letter, telephone or in person: A mixed methods systematic review of the effect on attendee anxiety, understanding and preferences.

Authors:  Sian Williamson; Jacoby Patterson; Rebecca Crosby; Rebecca Johnson; Harbinder Sandhu; Samantha Johnson; Jacquie Jenkins; Margaret Casey; Olive Kearins; Sian Taylor-Phillips
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2018-12-29
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.