Clare Brown1, Adrienne Nevola1, Bradley C Martin2. 1. 1 Department of Health Policy and Management, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences , Little Rock, Arkansas. 2. 2 Division of Pharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences , Little Rock, Arkansas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In November 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) changed their mammography screening guidelines from recommending a screen every 1-2 years for women older than 40 years. The revised guideline recommends against regular screening for women aged 40-49 and recommends biennial screening for women aged 50-74. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used autoregressive integrated moving-average (ARIMA) time series modeling to estimate the effect of the USPSTF 2009 guidelines on trends in screening rates. Enrollment and encounter files from the PharMetrics LifeLink+ commercial insurance claims database, years 2006-2014, were linked to determine monthly screening rates. The main outcome measure was mammography screening rates per 1,000 commercially insured women aged 40-49 or aged 50-64. RESULTS: The study sample included 493,347 women aged 40-49 years with at least 1 month of eligibility and 658,052 women aged 50-64 years with at least 1 month of eligibility. There were 1,305,375 total screening mammograms from 2007 to 2014. Average monthly mammography screening rates from 2007 to 2014 were 40.4 per 1,000 women aged 40-49 and 54.8 per 1,000 women aged 50-64. There was a temporary decline in monthly screening rates of 11.8% and 11.2% for the 40-49 and 50-64 age groups, respectively, in the 2-month period after the guideline change (January and February 2010), but the rates quickly returned to pre-USPSTF trend levels afterward. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the USPSTF 2009 guidelines was not associated with a persistent long-term change in mammography screening rates over the next 5 years, despite a temporary decline of 2 months immediately following the guidelines.
BACKGROUND: In November 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) changed their mammography screening guidelines from recommending a screen every 1-2 years for women older than 40 years. The revised guideline recommends against regular screening for women aged 40-49 and recommends biennial screening for women aged 50-74. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used autoregressive integrated moving-average (ARIMA) time series modeling to estimate the effect of the USPSTF 2009 guidelines on trends in screening rates. Enrollment and encounter files from the PharMetrics LifeLink+ commercial insurance claims database, years 2006-2014, were linked to determine monthly screening rates. The main outcome measure was mammography screening rates per 1,000 commercially insured women aged 40-49 or aged 50-64. RESULTS: The study sample included 493,347 women aged 40-49 years with at least 1 month of eligibility and 658,052 women aged 50-64 years with at least 1 month of eligibility. There were 1,305,375 total screening mammograms from 2007 to 2014. Average monthly mammography screening rates from 2007 to 2014 were 40.4 per 1,000 women aged 40-49 and 54.8 per 1,000 women aged 50-64. There was a temporary decline in monthly screening rates of 11.8% and 11.2% for the 40-49 and 50-64 age groups, respectively, in the 2-month period after the guideline change (January and February 2010), but the rates quickly returned to pre-USPSTF trend levels afterward. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the USPSTF 2009 guidelines was not associated with a persistent long-term change in mammography screening rates over the next 5 years, despite a temporary decline of 2 months immediately following the guidelines.
Entities:
Keywords:
USPSTF; mammography; screening; time series
Authors: Jeff Jianfei Guo; Suellen Curkendall; Judith K Jones; Daniel Fife; Earl Goehring; Dewei She Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Linda B Squiers; Debra J Holden; Suzanne E Dolina; Annice E Kim; Carla M Bann; Jeanette M Renaud Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Joshua J Fenton; Weiwei Zhu; Steven Balch; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Paul Fishman; Rebecca A Hubbard Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Amy T Wang; Jiaquan Fan; Holly K Van Houten; Jon C Tilburt; Natasha K Stout; Victor M Montori; Nilay D Shah Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kate L Lapane; Catherine Dubé; Katarina Ferrucci; Sara Khan; Kristine A Kuhn; Esther Yi; Jonathan Kay; Shao-Hsien Liu Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 2.497