BACKGROUND: Rates of screening mammography have plateaued, and the number of mammography facilities has declined in the past decade. The objective of this study was to assess changes over time and geographic disparities in the availability of mammography services. METHODS: Using information from the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Census, county-level mammography capacity was defined as the number of mammography machines per 10,000 women aged ≥ 40 years. Cross-sectional variation and longitudinal changes in capacity were examined in relation to county characteristics. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2010, the number of mammography facilities declined 10% from 9434 to 8469, the number of mammography machines declined 10% from 13,100 to 11,762, and the median county mammography capacity decreased nearly 20% from 1.77 to 1.42 machines per 10,000 women aged ≥ 40 years. In cross-sectional analysis, counties with greater percentages of uninsured residents, less educated residents, greater population density, and higher managed care penetration had lower mammography capacity. Conversely, counties with more hospital beds per 100,000 population had higher capacity. High initial mammography capacity, growth in both the percentage of the population aged ≥ 65 years and the percentage living in poverty, and increased managed care penetration were all associated with a decrease in mammography capacity between 2000 and 2010. Only the percentage of rural residents was associated with an increase in capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Geographic variation in mammography capacity and declines in capacity over time are associated with demographic, socioeconomic, and health care market characteristics. Maldistribution of mammography resources may explain geographic disparities in breast cancer screening rates.
BACKGROUND: Rates of screening mammography have plateaued, and the number of mammography facilities has declined in the past decade. The objective of this study was to assess changes over time and geographic disparities in the availability of mammography services. METHODS: Using information from the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Census, county-level mammography capacity was defined as the number of mammography machines per 10,000 women aged ≥ 40 years. Cross-sectional variation and longitudinal changes in capacity were examined in relation to county characteristics. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2010, the number of mammography facilities declined 10% from 9434 to 8469, the number of mammography machines declined 10% from 13,100 to 11,762, and the median county mammography capacity decreased nearly 20% from 1.77 to 1.42 machines per 10,000 women aged ≥ 40 years. In cross-sectional analysis, counties with greater percentages of uninsured residents, less educated residents, greater population density, and higher managed care penetration had lower mammography capacity. Conversely, counties with more hospital beds per 100,000 population had higher capacity. High initial mammography capacity, growth in both the percentage of the population aged ≥ 65 years and the percentage living in poverty, and increased managed care penetration were all associated with a decrease in mammography capacity between 2000 and 2010. Only the percentage of rural residents was associated with an increase in capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Geographic variation in mammography capacity and declines in capacity over time are associated with demographic, socioeconomic, and health care market characteristics. Maldistribution of mammography resources may explain geographic disparities in breast cancer screening rates.
Authors: Dione M Farria; Maria E Schmidt; Barbara S Monsees; Robert A Smith; Charles Hildebolt; Roberta Yoffie; Debra L Monticciolo; Stephen A Feig; Lawrence W Bassett Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: B E Hillner; M K McDonald; L Penberthy; C E Desch; T J Smith; P Maddux; W P Glasheen; S M Retchin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David A Haggstrom; Kathryn A Phillips; Su-Ying Liang; Jennifer S Haas; Sherilyn Tye; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Berta M Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Patricia A Carney; Linn A Abraham; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Stephen H Taplin; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Mark B Dignan; Robert Rosenberg; Nicole Urban; William E Barlow Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kathryn A Phillips; Jennifer S Haas; Su-Ying Liang; Laurence C Baker; Sherilyn Tye; Karla Kerlikowske; Julie Sakowski; Joanne Spetz Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Elena B Elkin; J Paige Nobles; Laura C Pinheiro; Coral L Atoria; Deborah Schrag Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Deirdre A Caplin; Ken R Smith; Kirsten K Ness; Heidi A Hanson; Stephanie M Smith; Paul C Nathan; Melissa M Hudson; Wendy M Leisenring; Leslie L Robison; Kevin C Oeffinger Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: Christoph I Lee; Weiwei Zhu; Tracy L Onega; Jessica Germino; Ellen S O'Meara; Constance D Lehman; Louise M Henderson; Jennifer S Haas; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Garth H Rauscher; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Christoph I Lee; Andy Bogart; Rebecca A Hubbard; Eniola T Obadina; Deirdre A Hill; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer A Alford-Teaster; Brian L Sprague; Wendy B DeMartini; Constance D Lehman; Tracy L Onega Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-04-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Patricia I Jewett; Ronald E Gangnon; Elena Elkin; John M Hampton; Elizabeth A Jacobs; Kristen Malecki; James LaGro; Polly A Newcomb; Amy Trentham-Dietz Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 3.797