Simon Craddock Lee1,2, Robin T Higashi3, Joanne M Sanders3, Hong Zhu3,4, Stephen J Inrig5, Caroline Mejias3, Keith E Argenbright3,4,6, Jasmin A Tiro3,4. 1. Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390-9066, USA. simoncraddock.lee@utsouthwestern.edu. 2. Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, 2201 Inwood Drive, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. simoncraddock.lee@utsouthwestern.edu. 3. Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390-9066, USA. 4. Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, 2201 Inwood Drive, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. 5. Mount St. Mary's University, 10 Chester Place, Los Angeles, CA, 90007, USA. 6. Moncrief Cancer Institute, 400 W. Magnolia Ave, Fort Worth, TX, 76104, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Effects of geographic program expansion to rural areas on screening program outcomes are understudied. We sought to determine whether time-to-resolution (TTR) varied significantly by service delivery time period, location, and participant characteristics across 19 North Texas counties. METHODS: We calculated proportions undergoing diagnostic follow-up and resolved ≤ 60 days. We calculated median TTR for each time period and abnormal result BI-RADS 0, 4, 5. Cox proportional hazards regressions estimated time period and patient characteristic effects on TTR. Wilcoxon rank sum tests evaluated whether TTR differed between women who did or did not transfer between counties for services. RESULTS: TTR ranged from 14 to 17 days for BI-RADs 0, 4, and 5; 12.4% transferred to a different county, resulting in longer median TTR (26 vs. 16 days; p < .001). Of those completing follow-up, 92% were resolved ≤ 60 days (median 15 days). For BI-RAD 3, TTR was 208 days (including required 180 day waiting period). Follow-up was significantly lower for women with BI-RAD 3 (59% vs. 96%; p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Expansion maintained timely service delivery, increasing access to screening among rural, uninsured women. Policies adding a separate quality metric for BI-RAD 3 could encourage follow-up monitoring to address lower completion and longer TTR among women with this result.
PURPOSE: Effects of geographic program expansion to rural areas on screening program outcomes are understudied. We sought to determine whether time-to-resolution (TTR) varied significantly by service delivery time period, location, and participant characteristics across 19 North Texas counties. METHODS: We calculated proportions undergoing diagnostic follow-up and resolved ≤ 60 days. We calculated median TTR for each time period and abnormal result BI-RADS 0, 4, 5. Cox proportional hazards regressions estimated time period and patient characteristic effects on TTR. Wilcoxon rank sum tests evaluated whether TTR differed between women who did or did not transfer between counties for services. RESULTS: TTR ranged from 14 to 17 days for BI-RADs 0, 4, and 5; 12.4% transferred to a different county, resulting in longer median TTR (26 vs. 16 days; p < .001). Of those completing follow-up, 92% were resolved ≤ 60 days (median 15 days). For BI-RAD 3, TTR was 208 days (including required 180 day waiting period). Follow-up was significantly lower for women with BI-RAD 3 (59% vs. 96%; p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Expansion maintained timely service delivery, increasing access to screening among rural, uninsured women. Policies adding a separate quality metric for BI-RAD 3 could encourage follow-up monitoring to address lower completion and longer TTR among women with this result.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer screening; Quality; Rural; Scale-up
Authors: Simon J Craddock Lee; Robin T Higashi; Stephen J Inrig; Joanne M Sanders; Hong Zhu; Keith E Argenbright; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Vicki B Benard; William Howe; Janet Royalty; William Helsel; William Kammerer; Lisa C Richardson Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2012-04-16 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Douglas M Post; Ann Scheck McAlearney; Gregory S Young; Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Jesse J Plascak; Electra D Paskett Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Elisabeth F Beaber; Jane J Kim; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Ann G Zauber; Ann M Geiger; Aruna Kamineni; Donald L Weaver; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Peter C Raich; Elizabeth M Whitley; William Thorland; Patricia Valverde; Diane Fairclough Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Heather J Hoffman; Nancy L LaVerda; Heather A Young; Paul H Levine; Lisa M Alexander; Rachel Brem; Larisa Caicedo; Jennifer Eng-Wong; Wayne Frederick; William Funderburk; Elmer Huerta; Sandra Swain; Steven R Patierno Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Rasmi G Nair; Simon J Craddock Lee; Emily Berry; Keith E Argenbright; Jasmin A Tiro; Celette Sugg Skinner Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 4.090