Jenna A Khan-Gates1, Jennifer L Ersek2, Jan M Eberth3, Swann A Adams4, Sandi L Pruitt5. 1. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: jkhan4@uic.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina; Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina; Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina; College of Nursing, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. 5. Department of Clinical Science, Southwestern University, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A review was conducted to summarize the current evidence and gaps in the literature on geographic access to mammography and its relationship to breast cancer-related outcomes. METHODS: Ovid, Medline, and PubMed were searched for articles published between January 1, 2000, and April 1, 2013, using Medical Subject Headings and key terms representing geographic accessibility and breast cancer-related outcomes. Owing to a paucity of breast cancer treatment and mortality outcomes meeting the criteria (N = 6), outcomes were restricted to breast cancer screening and stage at diagnosis. Studies included one or more of the following types of geographic accessibility measures: capacity, density, distance, and travel time. Study findings were grouped by outcome and type of geographic measure. RESULTS: Twenty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen articles included stage at diagnosis as an outcome, five included mammography use, and two included both. Geographic measures of mammography accessibility varied widely across studies. Findings also varied, but most articles found either increased geographic access to mammography associated with increased use and decreased late-stage at diagnosis or no association. CONCLUSION: The gaps and methodologic heterogeneity in the literature to date limit definitive conclusions about an underlying association between geographic mammography access and breast cancer-related outcomes. Future studies should focus on the development and application of more precise and consistent measures of geographic access to mammography.
INTRODUCTION: A review was conducted to summarize the current evidence and gaps in the literature on geographic access to mammography and its relationship to breast cancer-related outcomes. METHODS: Ovid, Medline, and PubMed were searched for articles published between January 1, 2000, and April 1, 2013, using Medical Subject Headings and key terms representing geographic accessibility and breast cancer-related outcomes. Owing to a paucity of breast cancer treatment and mortality outcomes meeting the criteria (N = 6), outcomes were restricted to breast cancer screening and stage at diagnosis. Studies included one or more of the following types of geographic accessibility measures: capacity, density, distance, and travel time. Study findings were grouped by outcome and type of geographic measure. RESULTS: Twenty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen articles included stage at diagnosis as an outcome, five included mammography use, and two included both. Geographic measures of mammography accessibility varied widely across studies. Findings also varied, but most articles found either increased geographic access to mammography associated with increased use and decreased late-stage at diagnosis or no association. CONCLUSION: The gaps and methodologic heterogeneity in the literature to date limit definitive conclusions about an underlying association between geographic mammography access and breast cancer-related outcomes. Future studies should focus on the development and application of more precise and consistent measures of geographic access to mammography.
Authors: Anna M Chiarelli; Sarah A Edwards; Amanda J Sheppard; Lucia Mirea; Nelson Chong; Lawrence Paszat; Rene S Shumak; Frances P Oʼmalley Journal: Eur J Cancer Prev Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Anneke T Schroen; David R Brenin; Maria D Kelly; William A Knaus; Craig L Slingluff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Emily Russell; Michael R Kramer; Hannah L F Cooper; Winifred Wilkins Thompson; Kimberly R Jacob Arriola Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Kevin A Henry; Recinda Sherman; Steve Farber; Myles Cockburn; Daniel W Goldberg; Antoinette M Stroup Journal: Health Place Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Elizabeth Tarlov; Shannon N Zenk; Richard T Campbell; Richard B Warnecke; Richard Block Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2008-10-30 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Shannon M Conroy; Christina A Clarke; Juan Yang; Salma Shariff-Marco; Yurii B Shvetsov; Song-Yi Park; Cheryl L Albright; Andrew Hertz; Kristine R Monroe; Laurence N Kolonel; Loïc Le Marchand; Lynne R Wilkens; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Iona Cheng Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 4.254
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
Authors: Aisha Bhimla; Lin Zhu; Shaina Twardus; Timmy Lin; Sarah Vo; Phuong Do; Grace X Ma Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Craig Evan Pollack; Katrina A Armstrong; Nandita Mitra; Xinwei Chen; Katelyn R Ward; Archana Radhakrishnan; Michelle S Wong; Justin E Bekelman; Charles C Branas; Karin V Rhodes; David T Grande Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 6.860