Literature DB >> 27803069

Insurance-Based Differences in Time to Diagnostic Follow-up after Positive Screening Mammography.

Danielle D Durham1, Whitney R Robinson1,2, Sheila S Lee3, Stephanie B Wheeler2,4, Katherine E Reeder-Hayes2,5, J Michael Bowling6, Andrew F Olshan1,2, Louise M Henderson7,2,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Insurance may lengthen or inhibit time to follow-up after positive screening mammography. We assessed the association between insurance status and time to initial diagnostic follow-up after a positive screening mammogram.
METHODS: Using 1995-2010 data from a North Carolina population-based registry of breast imaging and cancer outcomes, we identified women with a positive screening mammogram. We compared receipt of follow-up within 60 days of screening using logistic regression and evaluated time to follow-up initiation using Cox proportional hazards regression.
RESULTS: Among 43,026 women included in the study, 73% were <65 years and 27% were 65+ years. Median time until initial diagnostic follow-up was similar by age group and insurance status. In the adjusted model for women <65, uninsured women experienced a longer time to initiation of diagnostic follow-up [HR, 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.89] versus women with private insurance. There were increased odds of these uninsured women not meeting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for follow-up within 60 days (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.31-1.94). Among women ages 65+, women with private insurance experienced a faster time to follow-up (adjusted HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.27-3.44) than women with Medicare and private insurance. Approximately 10% of women had no follow-up by 365 days.
CONCLUSIONS: We found differences in time to initial diagnostic follow-up after a positive screening mammogram by insurance status and age group. Uninsured women younger than 65 years at a positive screening event had delayed follow-up. IMPACT: Replication of these findings and examination of their clinical significance warrant additional investigation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(11); 1474-82. ©2016 AACR. ©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27803069      PMCID: PMC5115635          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0148

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  56 in total

1.  Inadequate follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms: findings from the race differences in screening mammography process study (United States).

Authors:  Beth A Jones; Amy Dailey; Lisa Calvocoressi; Kam Reams; Stanislav V Kasl; Carol Lee; Helen Hsu
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.506

2.  Performance measures from 10 years of breast screening in the Ontario Breast Screening Program, 1990/91 to 2000.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Erika Halapy; Victoria Nadalin; Rene Shumak; Frances O'Malley; Verna Mai
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.497

3.  Racial/ethnic disparities in time to follow-up after an abnormal mammogram.

Authors:  Rebecca Press; Olveen Carrasquillo; Robert R Sciacca; Elsa-Grace V Giardina
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.681

4.  Mammography use among sociodemographically diverse women: the accuracy of self-report.

Authors:  J G Zapka; C Bigelow; T Hurley; L D Ford; J Egelhofer; W M Cloud; E Sachsse
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammogram: variability of facilities.

Authors:  Robert D Rosenberg; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; Berta M Geller; Diana S M Buist; Diana L Miglioretti; R James Brenner; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-09-07       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Reasons for delay in breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  L S Caplan; K J Helzlsouer; S Shapiro; M N Wesley; B K Edwards
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1996 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  Performance of screening mammography in organized programs in Canada in 1996. The Database Management Subcommittee to the National Committee for the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Initiative.

Authors:  D Paquette; J Snider; F Bouchard; I Olivotto; H Bryant; K Decker; G Doyle
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-10-31       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  The importance of health insurance as a determinant of cancer screening: evidence from the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  J Hsia; E Kemper; C Kiefe; J Zapka; S Sofaer; M Pettinger; D Bowen; M Limacher; L Lillington; E Mason
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 9.  22. Diagnostic delays in breast cancer and impact on survival.

Authors:  A Kothari; I S Fentiman
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.503

10.  System delay in breast cancer in whites and blacks.

Authors:  L S Caplan; K J Helzlsouer; S Shapiro; L S Freedman; R J Coates; B K Edwards
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1995-10-15       Impact factor: 4.897

View more
  6 in total

1.  Breast Cancer Disparities at Home and Abroad: A Review of the Challenges and Opportunities for System-Level Change.

Authors:  Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Benjamin O Anderson
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 12.531

2.  Gene-Level Germline Contributions to Clinical Risk of Recurrence Scores in Black and White Patients with Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Achal Patel; Montserrat García-Closas; Andrew F Olshan; Charles M Perou; Melissa A Troester; Michael I Love; Arjun Bhattacharya
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2021-10-28       Impact factor: 12.701

3.  Screening Mammogram Adherence in Medically Underserved Women: Does Language Preference Matter?

Authors:  Suzanne Vang; Laurie R Margolies; Lina Jandorf
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 1.771

4.  Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  Chyke A Doubeni; Nicole B Gabler; Cosette M Wheeler; Anne Marie McCarthy; Philip E Castle; Ethan A Halm; Mitchell D Schnall; Celette S Skinner; Anna N A Tosteson; Donald L Weaver; Anil Vachani; Shivan J Mehta; Katharine A Rendle; Stacey A Fedewa; Douglas A Corley; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Racial Disparities in Diagnostic Delay Among Women With Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Jasmine M Miller-Kleinhenz; Lindsay J Collin; Rebecca Seidel; Arthi Reddy; Rebecca Nash; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Lauren E McCullough
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2021-07-17       Impact factor: 6.240

6.  Impact of Improved Screening Mammography Recall Lay Letter Readability on Patient Follow-Up.

Authors:  Derek L Nguyen; Susan C Harvey; Eniola T Oluyemi; Kelly S Myers; Lisa A Mullen; Emily B Ambinder
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 5.532

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.