Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy1, Kelli S Hall2, Allison L Roach3, Edward D Rothman3, Vanessa K Dalton4, Ruth C Carlos5. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan School of Medicine. Electronic address: soudabeh@med.umich.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan School of Medicine; Institute for Social Research, Population Studies Center. 3. Department of Statistics ,University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan School of Medicine; University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan School of Medicine; University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation; University of Michigan Program for Imaging Comparative Effectiveness and Health Services Research.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although there is general agreement among various guidelines on benefits of routine screening mammography, the age of screening initiation and the optimal frequency of the test remain controversial. In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine breast cancer screening in women aged younger than 50 years. In this study, screening mammography guideline adherence among U.S. women is explored by examining patterns in rates of mammography age of initiation and utilization in years prior to and following the 2009 USPSTF guideline implementation. METHODS: U.S. population-based data from the 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys were used to measure the overall proportion and rate of change in the proportion of women who underwent screening mammography within the last year, by age and survey year. Data were accessed and analyzed in July 2014. RESULTS: Rates of mammography screening were lower in 2010 and 2012 compared with 2007 and 2008 (p<0.0001). The rate of screening initiation at age 40 years increased over time and was the highest in the years following USPSTF guideline changes (p=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: These data support no perceptible change in U.S. women's patterns of screening mammography age at initiation within 3 years of the USPSTF guideline revision. Whether this finding reflects a delayed effect of guideline revision in population trends or rather health provider practice and patient preference for more frequent screening is unclear and requires further investigation.
INTRODUCTION: Although there is general agreement among various guidelines on benefits of routine screening mammography, the age of screening initiation and the optimal frequency of the test remain controversial. In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine breast cancer screening in women aged younger than 50 years. In this study, screening mammography guideline adherence among U.S. women is explored by examining patterns in rates of mammography age of initiation and utilization in years prior to and following the 2009 USPSTF guideline implementation. METHODS: U.S. population-based data from the 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys were used to measure the overall proportion and rate of change in the proportion of women who underwent screening mammography within the last year, by age and survey year. Data were accessed and analyzed in July 2014. RESULTS: Rates of mammography screening were lower in 2010 and 2012 compared with 2007 and 2008 (p<0.0001). The rate of screening initiation at age 40 years increased over time and was the highest in the years following USPSTF guideline changes (p=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: These data support no perceptible change in U.S. women's patterns of screening mammography age at initiation within 3 years of the USPSTF guideline revision. Whether this finding reflects a delayed effect of guideline revision in population trends or rather health provider practice and patient preference for more frequent screening is unclear and requires further investigation.
Authors: Nikki A Hawkins; Vicki B Benard; April Greek; Katherine B Roland; Diane Manninen; Mona Saraiya Journal: Prev Med Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Kenyon C Bolton; John L Mace; Sally D Herschorn; Ted A James; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Berta M Geller Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Shagufta Yasmeen; Patrick S Romano; Daniel J Tancredi; Naomi H Saito; Julie Rainwater; Richard L Kravitz Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-02-06 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jennifer S Haas; William E Barlow; Marilyn M Schapira; Charles D MacLean; Carrie N Klabunde; Brian L Sprague; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jane S Chen; Asaf Bitton; Tracy Onega; Kimberly Harris; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Gelareh Sadigh; Ruth C Carlos; Kevin C Ward; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Renjian Jiang; Kimberly E Applegate; Richard Duszak Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; A Mark Fendrick; Sarah Bell; Neil Kamdar; Emily Kobernik; Vanessa K Dalton; Ruth C Carlos Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-04-13 Impact factor: 2.681
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; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Anne Marie McCarthy; Chyke A Doubeni; Virginia P Quinn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Ann G Zauber; William E Barlow Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-09-24 Impact factor: 4.872
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