Miao Jiang1, Danny R Hughes2, Catherine M Appleton3, Geraldine McGinty4, Richard Duszak5. 1. Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute, 1891 Preston White Drive, Reston, VA 20191, United States; Department of Health Administration and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, United States. Electronic address: mjiang@neimanhpi.org. 2. Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute, 1891 Preston White Drive, Reston, VA 20191, United States; Department of Health Administration and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, United States. 3. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 510 South Kingshighway Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63110, United States. 4. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, 1300 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. 5. Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute, 1891 Preston White Drive, Reston, VA 20191, United States; Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30322, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine recent trends in adherence to continuous screening, especially the rate of subsequent screening mammography following an initial screening before and after the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its guidelines on breast cancer in November 2009. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed Medicare fee-for-service claims data to: 1) compare rate of subsequent screening mammography over 27 month periods for 317,150 women screened in either 2004 or 2009; and 2) examine patterns of subsequent screening by age and race. RESULTS: When adjusted for age, race, state of residence, county-level covariates, and clustered on ordering provider, the rate of subsequent screening decreased in 2009 relative to 2004 (OR=0.75; 95% CI: 0.74-0.76). Adjusted odds ratios are similar for alternative follow-up windows (15 months, 0.71; 24 months, 0.70; 30 months 0.75). The decline was mostly attributable to women 75 and older who are now less likely to return for a subsequent screening. Although USPSTF guidelines call for 24 months, approximately half of women continue screening at 12-month intervals in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of subsequent screening mammography has declined after 2009. Older women seem to follow the revised USPSTF guideline, but confusion by physicians and patients about competing guidelines may be contributing to these findings.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine recent trends in adherence to continuous screening, especially the rate of subsequent screening mammography following an initial screening before and after the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its guidelines on breast cancer in November 2009. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed Medicare fee-for-service claims data to: 1) compare rate of subsequent screening mammography over 27 month periods for 317,150 women screened in either 2004 or 2009; and 2) examine patterns of subsequent screening by age and race. RESULTS: When adjusted for age, race, state of residence, county-level covariates, and clustered on ordering provider, the rate of subsequent screening decreased in 2009 relative to 2004 (OR=0.75; 95% CI: 0.74-0.76). Adjusted odds ratios are similar for alternative follow-up windows (15 months, 0.71; 24 months, 0.70; 30 months 0.75). The decline was mostly attributable to women 75 and older who are now less likely to return for a subsequent screening. Although USPSTF guidelines call for 24 months, approximately half of women continue screening at 12-month intervals in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of subsequent screening mammography has declined after 2009. Older women seem to follow the revised USPSTF guideline, but confusion by physicians and patients about competing guidelines may be contributing to these findings.
Authors: Heidi S Wirtz; Gregory S Calip; Diana S M Buist; Julie R Gralow; William E Barlow; Shelly Gray; Denise M Boudreau Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-04-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Robert F Arao; Rebecca A Hubbard; Brian L Sprague; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Jennifer S Haas; Louise Henderson; Deidre Hill; Christoph I Lee; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy Onega Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Elisabeth F Beaber; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Marilyn M Schapira; Anne Marie McCarthy; Christopher I Li; Sally D Herschorn; Constance D Lehman; Karen J Wernli; William E Barlow Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Rebecca A Hubbard; Ellen S O'Meara; Louise M Henderson; Deirdre Hill; Dejana Braithwaite; Jennifer S Haas; Christoph I Lee; Brian L Sprague; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Anna N A Tosteson; Karen J Wernli; Tracy Onega Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Chiang-Hua Chang; Julie P W Bynum; Tracy Onega; Carrie H Colla; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 2.681