Literature DB >> 22477670

Characteristics of US counties with no mammography capacity.

Lucy A Peipins1, Jacqueline Miller, Thomas B Richards, Janet Kay Bobo, Ta Liu, Mary C White, Djenaba Joseph, Florence Tangka, Donatus U Ekwueme.   

Abstract

Access to screening mammography may be limited by the availability of facilities and machines, and nationwide mammography capacity has been declining. We assessed nationwide capacity at state and county levels from 2003 to 2009, the most recent year for which complete data were available. Using mammography facility certification and inspection data from the Food and Drug Administration, we geocoded all mammography facilities in the United States and determined the total number of fully accredited mammography machines in each US County. We categorized mammography capacity as counties with zero capacity (i.e., 0 machines) or counties with capacity (i.e.,≥1 machines), and then compared those two categories by sociodemographic, health care, and geographic characteristics. We found that mammography capacity was not distributed equally across counties within states and that more than 27 % of counties had zero capacity. Although the number of mammography facilities and machines decreased slightly from 2003 to 2009, the percentage of counties with zero capacity changed little. In adjusted analyses, having zero mammography capacity was most strongly associated with low population density (OR = 11.0; 95 % CI 7.7-15.9), low primary care physician density (OR = 8.9; 95 % CI 6.8-11.7), and a low percentage of insured residents (OR = 3.3; 95 % CI 2.5-4.3) when compared with counties having at least one mammography machine. Mammography capacity has been and remains a concern for a portion of the US population--a population that is mostly but not entirely rural.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22477670      PMCID: PMC5836476          DOI: 10.1007/s10900-012-9562-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Health        ISSN: 0094-5145


  27 in total

1.  MSJAMA. Relationship between travel distance and utilization of breast cancer treatment in rural northern Michigan.

Authors:  Terry Meden; Celeste St John-Larkin; Deborah Hermes; Stephen Sommerschield
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-01-02       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Preventive health examinations: a comparison along the rural-urban continuum.

Authors:  Sharon Larson; Rosaly Correa-de-Araujo
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2006 Mar-Apr

3.  Poverty, affluence, and income inequality: neighborhood economic structure and its implications for health.

Authors:  Ming Wen; Christopher R Browning; Kathleen A Cagney
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 4.  Income inequality measures.

Authors:  Fernando G De Maio
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  Data and trends in cancer screening in the United States: results from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  Judith Swan; Nancy Breen; Barry I Graubard; Timothy S McNeel; Donald Blackman; Florence K Tangka; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway.

Authors:  Mette Kalager; Marvin Zelen; Frøydis Langmark; Hans-Olov Adami
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Vital signs: breast cancer screening among women aged 50-74 years - United States, 2008.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2010-07-09       Impact factor: 17.586

Review 8.  Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Vilma Cokkinides; Durado Brooks; Debbie Saslow; Otis W Brawley
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

9.  Disparities in mammography use among US women aged 40-64 years, by race, ethnicity, income, and health insurance status, 1993 and 2005.

Authors:  Susan A Sabatino; Ralph J Coates; Robert J Uhler; Nancy Breen; Florence Tangka; Kate M Shaw
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  16 in total

1.  Evaluating a De-Centralized Regional Delivery System for Breast Cancer Screening and Patient Navigation for the Rural Underserved.

Authors:  Stephen J Inrig; Jasmin A Tiro; Trisha V Melhado; Keith E Argenbright; Simon J Craddock Lee
Journal:  Tex Public Health J       Date:  2014

2.  Travel by public transit to mammography facilities in 6 US urban areas.

Authors:  S Graham; B Lewis; B Flanagan; M Watson; L Peipins
Journal:  J Transp Health       Date:  2015-12

3.  Assessing local capacity to expand rural breast cancer screening and patient navigation: An iterative mixed-method tool.

Authors:  Stephen J Inrig; Robin T Higashi; Jasmin A Tiro; Keith E Argenbright; Simon J Craddock Lee
Journal:  Eval Program Plann       Date:  2016-11-23

4.  Geographic disparities in mammography capacity in the South: a longitudinal assessment of supply and demand.

Authors:  Jan M Eberth; Karl Eschbach; Jeffrey S Morris; Hoang T Nguyen; Md Monir Hossain; Linda S Elting
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Multilevel Regression for Small-Area Estimation of Mammography Use in the United States, 2014.

Authors:  Zahava Berkowitz; Xingyou Zhang; Thomas B Richards; Susan A Sabatino; Lucy A Peipins; James Holt; Mary C White
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  The National Prevention Strategy and breast cancer screening: scientific evidence for public health action.

Authors:  Marcus Plescia; Mary C White
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2013-07-18       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Travel Burden to Breast MRI and Utilization: Are Risk and Sociodemographics Related?

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Christoph I Lee; David Benkeser; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Deirdre Hill; Xun Shi; Louise M Henderson; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 5.532

8.  Urban/Rural Differences in Breast and Cervical Cancer Incidence: The Mediating Roles of Socioeconomic Status and Provider Density.

Authors:  Jennifer L Moss; Benmei Liu; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2017-11-03

9.  Geographic access to breast imaging for US women.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Rebecca Hubbard; Deirdre Hill; Christoph I Lee; Jennifer S Haas; Heather A Carlos; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Andy Bogart; Wendy B DeMartini; Karla Kerlikowske; Beth A Virnig; Diana S M Buist; Louise Henderson; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 5.532

10.  Changes in the availability of screening mammography, 2000-2010.

Authors:  Elena B Elkin; Coral L Atoria; Nicole Leoce; Peter B Bach; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.