Literature DB >> 35212876

Delays in Follow-up Care for Abnormal Mammograms in Mobile Mammography Versus Fixed-Clinic Patients.

Suzanne S Vang1, Alexandra Dunn2, Laurie R Margolies3, Lina Jandorf4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mobile mammographic services (MM) have been shown to increase breast cancer screening in medically underserved women. However, little is known about MM patients' adherence to follow-up of abnormal mammograms and how this compares with patients from traditional, fixed clinics.
OBJECTIVES: To assess delays in follow-up of abnormal mammograms in women screened using MM versus fixed clinics.
DESIGN: Electronic medical record review of abnormal screening mammograms.
SUBJECTS: Women screened on a MM van or at a fixed clinic with an abnormal radiographic result in 2019 (N = 1,337). MAIN MEASURES: Our outcome was delay in follow-up of an abnormal mammogram of 60 days or greater. Guided by Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Utilization, we assessed the following: predisposing (age, ethnicity, marital status, preferred language), enabling (insurance, provider referral, clinic site), and need (personal breast cancer history, family history of breast/ovarian cancer) factors. KEY
RESULTS: Only 45% of MM patients had obtained recommended follow-up within 60 days of an abnormal screening compared to 72% of fixed-site patients (p < .001). After adjusting for predisposing, enabling, and need factors, MM patients were 2.1 times more likely to experience follow-up delays than fixed-site patients (CI: 1.5-3.1; p < .001). African American (OR: 1.5; CI: 1.0-2.1; p < .05) and self-referred (OR: 1.8; CI: 1.2-2.8; p < .01) women were significantly more likely to experience delays compared to Non-Hispanic White women or women with a provider referral, respectively. Women who were married (OR: 0.63; CI: 0.5-0.9; p < .01), had breast cancer previously (OR: 0.37; CI: 0.2-0.8; p < .05), or had a family history of breast/ovarian cancer (OR: 0.76; CI: 0.6-0.9; p < .05) were less likely to experience delayed care compared to unmarried women, women with no breast cancer history, or women without a family history of breast/ovarian cancer, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of women screened using MM had follow-up delays. Women who are African American, self-referred, or unmarried are particularly at risk of experiencing delays in care for an abnormal mammogram.
© 2021. Society of General Internal Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  abnormal mammogram; breast cancer; mobile mammography; screening; underserved

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35212876      PMCID: PMC9130416          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-07189-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   6.473


  64 in total

Review 1.  Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening.

Authors:  Roshan Bastani; K Robin Yabroff; Ronald E Myers; Beth Glenn
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Racial/ethnic disparities in time to follow-up after an abnormal mammogram.

Authors:  Rebecca Press; Olveen Carrasquillo; Robert R Sciacca; Elsa-Grace V Giardina
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; S M Rubin; C Sandrock; V L Ernster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-01-11       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Message Received: African American Women and Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Susan Racine Passmore; Kester F Williams-Parry; Erica Casper; Stephen B Thomas
Journal:  Health Promot Pract       Date:  2017-03-23

5.  Mammography result notification letters: are they easy to read and understand?

Authors:  Erin N Marcus; Lee M Sanders; Margaret Pereyra; Yanisa Del Toro; Ada Pat Romilly; Monica Yepes; Monica Webb Hooper; Beth A Jones
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  Influence of primary care on breast cancer outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Richard G Roetzheim; Jeanne M Ferrante; Ji-Hyun Lee; Ren Chen; Kymia M Love-Jackson; Eduardo C Gonzalez; Kate J Fisher; Ellen P McCarthy
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.166

7.  Keys to the Successful Implementation of Community-Based Outreach and Navigation: Lessons from a Breast Health Navigation Program.

Authors:  Bijou R Hunt; Kristi L Allgood; Jacqueline M Kanoon; Maureen R Benjamins
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.037

8.  Poor patient comprehension of abnormal mammography results.

Authors:  Leah S Karliner; Celia Patricia Kaplan; Teresa Juarbe; Rena Pasick; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Prognostic significance of marital status in breast cancer survival: A population-based study.

Authors:  María Elena Martínez; Jonathan T Unkart; Li Tao; Candyce H Kroenke; Richard Schwab; Ian Komenaka; Scarlett Lin Gomez
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Impact of patient race and geographical factors on initiation and adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy in medicare breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Fabian T Camacho; Xi Tan; Héctor E Alcalá; Surbhi Shah; Roger T Anderson; Rajesh Balkrishnan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.