Literature DB >> 29869958

Use of Breast Cancer Screening and Its Association with Later Use of Preventive Services among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Stella K Kang1, Miao Jiang1, Richard Duszak1, Samantha L Heller1, Danny R Hughes1, Linda Moy1.   

Abstract

Purpose To retrospectively assess whether there is an association between screening mammography and the use of a variety of preventive services in women who are enrolled in Medicare. Materials and Methods U.S. Medicare claims from 2010 to 2014 Research Identifiable Files were reviewed to retrospectively identify a group of women who underwent screening mammography and a control group without screening mammography in 2012. The screened group was divided into positive versus negative results at screening, and the positive subgroup was divided into false-positive and true-positive findings. Multivariate logistic regression models and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to examine the relationship between screening status and the probabilities of undergoing Papanicolaou test, bone mass measurement, or influenza vaccination in the following 2 years. Results The cohort consisted of 555 705 patients, of whom 185 625 (33.4%) underwent mammography. After adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, geographic covariates, and baseline preventive care, women who underwent index screening mammography (with either positive or negative results) were more likely than unscreened women to later undergo Papanicolaou test (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval: 1.40, 1.58), bone mass measurement (OR, 1.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.63, 1.78), and influenza vaccine (OR, 1.45; 95% confidence interval: 1.37, 1.53). In women who had not undergone these preventive measures in the 2 years before screening mammography, use of these three services after false-positive findings at screening was no different than after true-negative findings at screening. Conclusion In beneficiaries of U.S. Medicare, use of screening mammography was associated with higher likelihood of adherence to other preventive guidelines, without a negative association between false-positive results and cervical cancer screening. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29869958      PMCID: PMC6122660          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018172326

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  24 in total

1.  NCHS urban-rural classification scheme for counties.

Authors:  Deborah D Ingram; Sheila J Franco
Journal:  Vital Health Stat 2       Date:  2012-01

2.  Psychological consequences of screening mammography.

Authors:  J Cockburn; M Staples; S F Hurley; T De Luise
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 2.136

3.  Cost effectiveness of fracture prevention in postmenopausal women who receive aromatase inhibitors for early breast cancer.

Authors:  Kouta Ito; Victoria S Blinder; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-02-27       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

5.  Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms.

Authors:  C Lerman; B Trock; B K Rimer; A Boyce; C Jepson; P F Engstrom
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1991-04-15       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  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

8.  Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; J Barclay; E A Sickles; V Ernster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-07-03       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Receipt of Cancer Screening Is a Predictor of Life Expectancy.

Authors:  James S Goodwin; Kristin Sheffield; Shuang Li; Alai Tan
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Impact of false-positive mammography on subsequent screening attendance and risk of cancer.

Authors:  Jenny McCann; Diane Stockton; Sara Godward
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2002-07-17       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  3 in total

1.  Effect of Screening Mammography on Other Preventive Services in Older Women.

Authors:  Gary J Whitman; Scott B Cantor
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Does mailing unsolicited HPV self-sampling kits to women overdue for cervical cancer screening impact uptake of other preventive health services in a United States integrated delivery system?

Authors:  Hitomi Kariya; Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; John Lin; Hongyuan Gao; Linda K Ko; Rachel L Winer
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2021-11-17       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  Enhancing livestock vaccination decision-making through rapid diagnostic testing.

Authors:  Ashley F Railey; Felix Lankester; Tiziana Lembo; Richard Reeve; Gabriel Shirima; Thomas L Marsh
Journal:  World Dev Perspect       Date:  2019-12
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.