Patricia I Jewett1, Ronald E Gangnon2, Elena Elkin3, John M Hampton4, Elizabeth A Jacobs5, Kristen Malecki4, James LaGro6, Polly A Newcomb7, Amy Trentham-Dietz4. 1. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison; Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Electronic address: pjewett@wisc.edu. 2. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison; Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 4. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison; Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 5. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison; Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 6. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 7. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the association between geographic access to mammography facilities and women's mammography utilization frequency. METHODS: Using data from the population-based 1995-2007 Wisconsin Women's Health study, we used proportional odds and logistic regression to test whether driving times to mammography facilities and the number of mammography facilities within 10 km of women's homes were associated with mammography frequency among women aged 50-74 years and whether associations differed between Rural-Urban Commuting Areas and income and education groups. RESULTS: We found evidence for nonlinear relationships between geographic access and mammography utilization (nonlinear effects of driving times and facility density, P-values .01 and .005, respectively). Having at least one nearby mammography facility was associated with greater mammography frequency among urban women (1 vs. 0 facilities, odds ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.47), with similar effects among rural women. Adding more facilities had decreasing marginal effects. Long driving times tended to be associated with lower mammography frequency. We found no effect modification by income, education, or urbanicity. In rural settings, mammography nonuse was higher, facility density smaller, and driving times to facilities were longer. CONCLUSIONS: Having at least one mammography facility near one's home may increase mammography utilization, with decreasing effects per each additional facility.
PURPOSE: To assess the association between geographic access to mammography facilities and women's mammography utilization frequency. METHODS: Using data from the population-based 1995-2007 Wisconsin Women's Health study, we used proportional odds and logistic regression to test whether driving times to mammography facilities and the number of mammography facilities within 10 km of women's homes were associated with mammography frequency among women aged 50-74 years and whether associations differed between Rural-Urban Commuting Areas and income and education groups. RESULTS: We found evidence for nonlinear relationships between geographic access and mammography utilization (nonlinear effects of driving times and facility density, P-values .01 and .005, respectively). Having at least one nearby mammography facility was associated with greater mammography frequency among urban women (1 vs. 0 facilities, odds ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.47), with similar effects among rural women. Adding more facilities had decreasing marginal effects. Long driving times tended to be associated with lower mammography frequency. We found no effect modification by income, education, or urbanicity. In rural settings, mammography nonuse was higher, facility density smaller, and driving times to facilities were longer. CONCLUSIONS: Having at least one mammography facility near one's home may increase mammography utilization, with decreasing effects per each additional facility.
Authors: Nancy Breen; Kathleen A Cronin; Helen I Meissner; Stephen H Taplin; Florence K Tangka; Jasmin A Tiro; Timothy S McNeel Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Susan A Sabatino; Ralph J Coates; Robert J Uhler; Nancy Breen; Florence Tangka; Kate M Shaw Journal: Med Care Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Stephen C Meersman; Nancy Breen; Linda W Pickle; Helen I Meissner; Paul Simon Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2009-06-20 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Sydney E Kim; Alexandra E Bachorik; Kimberly A Bertrand; Christine M Gunn Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Marc A Emerson; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Heather J Tipaldos; Mary E Bell; Marina R Sweeney; Lisa A Carey; H Shelton Earp; Andrew F Olshan; Melissa A Troester Journal: Curr Breast Cancer Rep Date: 2020-05-14
Authors: Victoria L Champion; Patrick O Monahan; Timothy E Stump; Erika B Biederman; Eric Vachon; Mira L Katz; Susan M Rawl; Ryan D Baltic; Carla D Kettler; Natalie L Zaborski; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Neal G Spada; Emily M Geramita; Maryam Zamanian; G J van Londen; Zhaojun Sun; Lindsay M Sabik Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Jennifer Tsui; Jana A Hirsch; Felicia J Bayer; James W Quinn; Jesse Cahill; David Siscovick; Gina S Lovasi Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-05-01