Long Trinh1, Debra M Ikeda1, Kanae K Miyake1, Jennifer Trinh2, Kevin K Lee3, Haatal Dave4, Kei Hanafusa3, Jafi Lipson1. 1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 2. Department of Radiology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California. Electronic address: jenntrinhmd@gmail.com. 3. Department of Radiology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California. 4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to measure women's knowledge of breast density and their attitudes toward supplemental screening tests in the setting of the California Breast Density Notification Law at an academic facility and a county hospital, serving women with higher and lower socioeconomic status, respectively. METHODS: Institutional review board exemptions were obtained. A survey was administered during screening mammography at two facilities, assessing women's awareness of and interest in knowing their breast density and interest in and willingness to pay for supplemental whole breast ultrasound and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CEMG). The results were compared by using Fisher exact tests between groups. RESULTS: A total of 105 of 130 and 132 of 153 women responded to the survey at the academic and county facilities, respectively. Among respondents at the academic and county facilities, 23% and 5% were aware of their breast density, and 94% and 79% wanted to know their density. A majority were interested in supplemental ultrasonography and CEMG at both sites; however, fewer women had a willingness to pay for the supplemental tests at the county hospital compared with those at the academic facility (22% and 70%, respectively, for ultrasound, P < .0001; 20% and 65%, respectively, for CEMG, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Both groups of women were interested in knowing their breast density and in supplemental screening tests. However, women at the county hospital were less willing to incur out-of-pocket expenses, suggesting a potential for a disparity in health care access for women of lower socioeconomic status after the enactment of breast density notification legislation. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to measure women's knowledge of breast density and their attitudes toward supplemental screening tests in the setting of the California Breast Density Notification Law at an academic facility and a county hospital, serving women with higher and lower socioeconomic status, respectively. METHODS: Institutional review board exemptions were obtained. A survey was administered during screening mammography at two facilities, assessing women's awareness of and interest in knowing their breast density and interest in and willingness to pay for supplemental whole breast ultrasound and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CEMG). The results were compared by using Fisher exact tests between groups. RESULTS: A total of 105 of 130 and 132 of 153 women responded to the survey at the academic and county facilities, respectively. Among respondents at the academic and county facilities, 23% and 5% were aware of their breast density, and 94% and 79% wanted to know their density. A majority were interested in supplemental ultrasonography and CEMG at both sites; however, fewer women had a willingness to pay for the supplemental tests at the county hospital compared with those at the academic facility (22% and 70%, respectively, for ultrasound, P < .0001; 20% and 65%, respectively, for CEMG, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Both groups of women were interested in knowing their breast density and in supplemental screening tests. However, women at the county hospital were less willing to incur out-of-pocket expenses, suggesting a potential for a disparity in health care access for women of lower socioeconomic status after the enactment of breast density notification legislation. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast density notification law; breast cancer; mammography; socioeconomic status; supplement screening tests
Authors: Alsacia L Pacsi-Sepulveda; Rachel C Shelton; Carmen B Rodriguez; Arielle T Coq; Parisa Tehranifar Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christine Gunn; Ariel Maschke; Timothy Bickmore; Mark Kennedy; Margaret F Hopkins; Michael D C Fishman; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Erica T Warner Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Christine M Gunn; Amy Fitzpatrick; Sarah Waugh; Michelle Carrera; Nancy R Kressin; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Clinton D Morgan; Scott L Zuckerman; Lauren E King; Susan E Beaird; Allen K Sills; Gary S Solomon Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Lucy B Spalluto; Christianne L Roumie; Kemberlee R Bonnett; David G Schlundt; Carolynn M DeBenedectis; Consuelo H Wilkins Journal: Breast J Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Mark Manning; Terrance L Albrecht; Zeynep Yilmaz-Saab; Louis Penner; Andria Norman; Kristen Purrington Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 4.634