Literature DB >> 25450494

Changes in U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations: effect on mammography screening in Olmsted County, MN 2004-2013.

Lila J Finney Rutten1, Jon O Ebbert2, Debra J Jacobson3, Linda B Squiers4, Chun Fan3, Carmen Radecki Breitkopf5, Véronique L Roger3, Jennifer L St Sauver3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We assessed changes in adherence to screening mammography recommendations with the introduction of the new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations in 2009.
METHODS: Using the Rochester Epidemiology Project data linkage system, we examined mammography screening from 2004 to 2013 in 31,377 women 40years of age and older residing in Olmsted County, MN before and after the 2009 change in recommendations. Chi-square was used to compare screening rates before and after changes in recommendations overall, by age group, and by baseline adherence.
RESULTS: Among women 40 years and older, declines in screening were observed: 69% of the population was adherent in 2004-2005, 61% in 2006-2009 and 53% in 2010-2013. Absolute decreases in screening were observed from pre- to post-change for those ages 40-49 (4%), 50-74 (9%), and those 75+ (19%, all p<0.0001). Relative declines in screening rates were observed among women aged 70-74 years who were non-adherent at baseline and among women who were adherent at baseline, overall, and in each age group (all p<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Declines in screening, both absolute and relative, were most pronounced among women who were adherent at baseline. Research is needed to assess factors that influence screening in the context of evolving recommendations.
Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adherence; Mammography; Recommendations; Screening; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25450494      PMCID: PMC4312230          DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.10.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  21 in total

1.  Examination of population-wide trends in barriers to cancer screening from a diffusion of innovation perspective (1987-2000).

Authors:  Lila J Finney Rutten; David E Nelson; Helen I Meissner
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  Barriers and missed opportunities in breast and cervical cancer screening among women aged 50 and over, New York City, 2002.

Authors:  Denis Nash; Christina Chan; Deborah Horowitz; David Vlahov
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.681

Review 3.  Accuracy of self-reported cancer-screening histories: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Garth H Rauscher; Timothy P Johnson; Young Ik Cho; Jennifer A Walk
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Women's understanding of the mammography screening debate.

Authors:  S Woloshin; L M Schwartz; S J Byram; H C Sox; B Fischhoff; H G Welch
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2000-05-22

5.  The public's response to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's 2009 recommendations on mammography screening.

Authors:  Linda B Squiers; Debra J Holden; Suzanne E Dolina; Annice E Kim; Carla M Bann; Jeanette M Renaud
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Mammogram debate flares up: Latest breast cancer screening study fuels controversy.

Authors:  Carrie Printz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Validation of recall of breast and cervical cancer screening by women in an ethnically diverse population.

Authors:  Stephen J McPhee; Tung T Nguyen; Sarah J Shema; Bang Nguyen; Carol Somkin; Phuong Vo; Rena Pasick
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.018

8.  Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Stephanie Bailey; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Hui Huang; Sandra J Lee; Mark Munsell; Sylvia K Plevritis; Peter Ravdin; Clyde B Schechter; Bronislava Sigal; Michael A Stoto; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; John Venier; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 9.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Validity of self-reported mammography: examining recall and covariates among older women in a Health Maintenance Organization.

Authors:  Lee S Caplan; Margaret T Mandelson; Lynda A Anderson
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 4.897

View more
  5 in total

1.  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

2.  The Effect of the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations on Mammography Rates.

Authors:  Natallia Gray; Gabriel Picone
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Examining Breast Cancer Screening Behavior Among Southern Black Women After the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force Mammography Guideline Revisions.

Authors:  Deeonna E Farr; Heather M Brandt; Swann Arp Adams; Venice E Haynes; Andrea S Gibson; Dawnyéa D Jackson; Kimberly C Rawlinson; John R Ureda; James R Hébert
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2020-02

4.  Germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations among high risk breast cancer patients in Jordan.

Authors:  Hikmat Abdel-Razeq; Amal Al-Omari; Farah Zahran; Banu Arun
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 4.430

5.  Factors associated with attendance at screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rebecca Mottram; Wendy Lynn Knerr; Daniel Gallacher; Hannah Fraser; Lena Al-Khudairy; Abimbola Ayorinde; Sian Williamson; Chidozie Nduka; Olalekan A Uthman; Samantha Johnson; Alexander Tsertsvadze; Christopher Stinton; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Aileen Clarke
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.