Literature DB >> 23829179

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

Jan M Eberth1, Karl Eschbach, Jeffrey S Morris, Hoang T Nguyen, Md Monir Hossain, Linda S Elting.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Studies have shown that there is sufficient availability of mammography; however, little is known about geographic variation in capacity. The purpose of this study was to determine the locations and extent of over/undersupply of mammography in 14 southern states from 2002 to 2008. DATA SOURCES: Mammography facility data were collected from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Population estimates, used to estimate the potential demand for mammography, were obtained from GeoLytics Inc. STUDY
DESIGN: Using the two-step floating catchment area method, we calculated spatial accessibility at the block group level and categorized the resulting index to represent the extent of under/oversupply relative to the potential demand. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Results show decreasing availability of mammography over time. The extent of over/undersupply varied significantly across the South. Reductions in capacity occurred primarily in areas with an oversupply of machines, resulting in a 68 percent decrease in the percent of women living in excess capacity areas from 2002 to 2008. The percent of women living in poor capacity areas rose by 10 percent from 2002 to 2008.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study found decreasing mammography availability and capacity over time, with substantial variation across states. This information can assist providers and policy makers in their business planning and resource allocation decisions. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health services accessibility; geographic information systems; health services needs and demands; mammography; spatial analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23829179      PMCID: PMC3922472          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12081

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  18 in total

1.  Characteristics of US counties with no mammography capacity.

Authors:  Lucy A Peipins; Jacqueline Miller; Thomas B Richards; Janet Kay Bobo; Ta Liu; Mary C White; Djenaba Joseph; Florence Tangka; Donatus U Ekwueme
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2012-12

2.  Variable catchment sizes for the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method.

Authors:  Wei Luo; Tara Whippo
Journal:  Health Place       Date:  2012-04-22       Impact factor: 4.078

3.  Is the supply of mammography machines outstripping need and demand? An economic analysis.

Authors:  M L Brown; L G Kessler; F G Rueter
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1990-10-01       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Access to Mammography Facilities and Detection of Breast Cancer by Screening Mammography: A GIS Approach.

Authors:  Selina Rahman; James H Price; Mark Dignan; Saleh Rahman; Peter S Lindquist; Timothy R Jordan
Journal:  Int J Canc Prev       Date:  2009

5.  Geographic access and the use of screening mammography.

Authors:  Elena B Elkin; Nicole M Ishill; Jacqueline G Snow; Katherine S Panageas; Peter B Bach; Laura Liberman; Fahui Wang; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Benefit of screening mammography in reducing the rate of late-stage breast cancer diagnoses (United States).

Authors:  Sandra A Norman; A Russell Localio; Lan Zhou; Anita L Weber; Ralph J Coates; Kathleen E Malone; Leslie Bernstein; Polly A Marchbanks; Jonathan M Liff; Nancy C Lee; Marion R Nadel
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.506

7.  Protection of mammography screening against death from breast cancer in women aged 40-64 years.

Authors:  Sandra A Norman; A Russell Localio; Anita L Weber; Ralph J Coates; Lan Zhou; Leslie Bernstein; Kathleen E Malone; Polly A Marchbanks; Linda K Weiss; Nancy C Lee; Marion R Nadel
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2007-07-31       Impact factor: 2.506

8.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  John M Lewin; Carl J D'Orsi; R Edward Hendrick; Lawrence J Moss; Pamela K Isaacs; Andrew Karellas; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Access to mammography screening in a large urban population: a multi-level analysis.

Authors:  Stephen C Meersman; Nancy Breen; Linda W Pickle; Helen I Meissner; Paul Simon
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2009-06-20       Impact factor: 2.506

10.  Comparing GIS-based measures in access to mammography and their validity in predicting neighborhood risk of late-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Min Lian; James Struthers; Mario Schootman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Geographic Access to Mammography and Its Relationship to Breast Cancer Screening and Stage at Diagnosis: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jenna A Khan-Gates; Jennifer L Ersek; Jan M Eberth; Swann A Adams; Sandi L Pruitt
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2015-07-26

2.  Change in geographic access to community health centers after Health Center Program expansion.

Authors:  Leigh Evans; Martin P Charns; Howard J Cabral; M Patricia Fabian
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Do Avoidable Hospitalization Rates among Older Adults Differ by Geographic Access to Primary Care Physicians?

Authors:  Michael R Daly; Jennifer M Mellor; Marco Millones
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Perceptions of One's Neighborhood and Mammogram Use among a Sample of Low-Income Women at Risk for Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Sexually Transmitted Infections.

Authors:  Melissa A Davey-Rothwell; Janice Bowie; Laura Murray; Carl A Latkin
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2015-09-26

5.  Lack of Impact of the 2009 USPSTF Guidelines on Rates of Mammography Screening.

Authors:  Clare Brown; Adrienne Nevola; Bradley C Martin
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  Rural-Urban Differences in Late-Stage Breast Cancer: Do Associations Differ by Rural-Urban Classification System?

Authors:  Sandi L Pruitt; Jan M Eberth; E Scott Morris; David B Grinsfelder; Erica L Cuate
Journal:  Tex Public Health J       Date:  2015

7.  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

8.  The Institutional Effects of Incarceration: Spillovers From Criminal Justice to Health Care.

Authors:  Jason Schnittker; Christopher Uggen; Sarah K S Shannon; Suzy Maves McElrath
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.911

9.  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

10.  Breast Cancer Disparities Among Women in Underserved Communities in the USA.

Authors:  Beti Thompson; Sarah D Hohl; Yamile Molina; Electra D Paskett; James L Fisher; Ryan D Baltic; Chasity M Washington
Journal:  Curr Breast Cancer Rep       Date:  2018-08-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.