Marilyn M Schapira1, William E Barlow2, Emily F Conant3, Brian L Sprague4, Anna N A Tosteson5, Jennifer S Haas6, Tracy Onega5, Elisabeth F Beaber2, Martha Goodrich5, Anne Marie McCarthy7, Sally D Herschorn8, Celette Sugg Skinner9, Tory O Harrington10, Berta Geller11. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, 1316 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104; Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: mschap@pennmedicine.upenn.edu. 2. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Departments of Surgery and Radiology, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT. 5. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 6. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Department of Radiology, Fletcher Allen Health Care, Burlington, Vermont. 9. University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. 10. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 11. University of Vermont and State Agricultural College, Vineyard Haven, Massachusetts.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of communication practices with timely follow-up of screening mammograms read as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS) 0 in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A radiology facility survey was conducted in 2015 with responses linked to screening mammograms obtained in 2011-2014. We considered timely follow-up to be within 15 days of the screening mammogram. Generalized estimating equation models were used to evaluate the association between modes of communication with patients and providers and timely follow-up, adjusting for PROSPR site, patient age, and race and ethnicity. RESULTS: The analysis included 34,680 mammography examinations with a BI-RADS 0 assessment among 28 facilities. Across facilities, 85.6% of examinations had a follow-up within 15 days. Patients in a facility where routine practice was to contact the patient by phone if follow-up imaging was recommended were more likely to have timely follow-up (odds ratio [OR] 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.76-7.76), whereas standard use of mail was associated with reduced timely follow-up (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.75). Facilities that had standard use of electronic medical records to report the need for follow-up imaging to a provider had less timely follow-up (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.90). Facilities that routinely contacted patients by mail if they missed a follow-up imaging visit were more likely to have timely follow-up (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.02-2.69). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the value of telephone communication to patients in relation to timely follow-up. Future research is needed to evaluate the role of communication in completing the breast cancer screening episode.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of communication practices with timely follow-up of screening mammograms read as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS) 0 in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A radiology facility survey was conducted in 2015 with responses linked to screening mammograms obtained in 2011-2014. We considered timely follow-up to be within 15 days of the screening mammogram. Generalized estimating equation models were used to evaluate the association between modes of communication with patients and providers and timely follow-up, adjusting for PROSPR site, patient age, and race and ethnicity. RESULTS: The analysis included 34,680 mammography examinations with a BI-RADS 0 assessment among 28 facilities. Across facilities, 85.6% of examinations had a follow-up within 15 days. Patients in a facility where routine practice was to contact the patient by phone if follow-up imaging was recommended were more likely to have timely follow-up (odds ratio [OR] 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.76-7.76), whereas standard use of mail was associated with reduced timely follow-up (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.75). Facilities that had standard use of electronic medical records to report the need for follow-up imaging to a provider had less timely follow-up (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.90). Facilities that routinely contacted patients by mail if they missed a follow-up imaging visit were more likely to have timely follow-up (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.02-2.69). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the value of telephone communication to patients in relation to timely follow-up. Future research is needed to evaluate the role of communication in completing the breast cancer screening episode.
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Connie Y Nakano; Hannah M Linden; Lisa M Reisch; John Z Ayanian; Eric B Larson Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Kimlin T Ashing-Giwa; Patricia Gonzalez; Jung-Won Lim; Cathie Chung; Benjamin Paz; George Somlo; Mark T Wakabayashi Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Mark Kettler; Andrea J Cook; Berta M Geller; Leah Karliner; Diana L Miglioretti; Erin Aiello Bowles; Diana S Buist; Thomas H Gallagher; Joann G Elmore Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2009-05-12 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Debra Wujcik; Yu Shyr; Ming Li; Margaret F Clayton; Lee Ellington; Usha Menon; Kathi Mooney Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Jon F Kerner; Michael Yedidia; Deborah Padgett; Barbara Muth; Kathleen Shakira Washington; Mariella Tefft; K Robin Yabroff; Erini Makariou; Harold Freeman; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: Prev Med Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Eric G Poon; Jennifer S Haas; Ann Louise Puopolo; Tejal K Gandhi; Elisabeth Burdick; David W Bates; Troyen A Brennan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jazmine D Kenny; Leah S Karliner; Karla Kerlikowske; Celia P Kaplan; Ana Fernandez-Lamothe; Nancy J Burke Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: William E Barlow; Elisabeth F Beaber; Berta M Geller; Aruna Kamineni; Yingye Zheng; Jennifer S Haas; Chun R Chao; Carolyn M Rutter; Ann G Zauber; Brian L Sprague; Ethan A Halm; Donald L Weaver; Jessica Chubak; V Paul Doria-Rose; Sarah Kobrin; Tracy Onega; Virginia P Quinn; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Douglas A Corley; Celette Sugg Skinner; Mitchell D Schnall; Katrina Armstrong; Cosette M Wheeler; Michael J Silverberg; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Chyke A Doubeni; Dale McLerran; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Renda Soylemez Wiener; Jack A Clark; Elisa Koppelman; Rendelle Bolton; Gemmae M Fix; Christopher G Slatore; Hasmeena Kathuria Journal: Chest Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 9.410
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