Literature DB >> 9718220

Measuring mammography compliance: lessons learned from a survival analysis of screening behavior.

M R Partin1, A L Casey-Paal, J S Slater, J E Korn.   

Abstract

Data from a telephone survey of women participating in a federally funded screening program were used to demonstrate the sensitivity of mammography compliance estimates to varying definitions of the time interval within which women are considered compliant with screening guidelines and what constitutes a true screening (as opposed to diagnostic) mammogram. The survival analysis approach used reveals patterns concealed by other approaches to measuring mammography behavior and provides a means for quantifying the impact of various definitional choices on compliance estimates. The results suggest that, although variations in defining and excluding potential diagnostic mammograms lead to differences in compliance measures no greater than 6%, differences as small as 1 month in the screening interval definition used can produce differences in compliance estimates as large as 27%. These results call into question the comparability of estimates across studies and suggest that standard measures would greatly facilitate future efforts in understanding how to promote compliance with mammography screening guidelines.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9718220

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  9 in total

1.  Concordance of population-based estimates of mammography screening.

Authors:  Denise M Boudreau; Casey L Luce; Evette Ludman; Amy E Bonomi; Paul A Fishman
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2007-07-17       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  Standard definitions of adherence for infrequent yet repeated health behaviors.

Authors:  Jennifer M Gierisch; Paul L Reiter; Barbara K Rimer; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Am J Health Behav       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec

3.  A longitudinal assessment of adherence to breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations among women with and without intellectual disability.

Authors:  Xinling Xu; Suzanne W McDermott; Joshua R Mann; James W Hardin; Chelsea B Deroche; Dianna D Carroll; Elizabeth A Courtney-Long
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2017-04-25       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  Monitoring visual status: why patients do or do not comply with practice guidelines.

Authors:  Frank A Sloan; Derek S Brown; Emily Streyer Carlisle; Gabriel A Picone; Paul P Lee
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Repeat mammography screening among unmarried women with and without a disability.

Authors:  Melissa A Clark; Michelle L Rogers; Xiaozhong Wen; Victoria Wilcox; Kate McCarthy-Barnett; Jeanne Panarace; Carol Manning; Susan Allen; William Rakowski
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2009-09-23

6.  Promoting regular mammography screening I. A systematic assessment of validity in a randomized trial.

Authors:  Deborah J del Junco; Sally W Vernon; Sharon P Coan; Jasmin A Tiro; Lori A Bastian; Lara S Savas; Catherine A Perz; David R Lairson; Wen Chan; Cynthia Warrick; Amy McQueen; William Rakowski
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-02-26       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Promoting regular mammography screening II. Results from a randomized controlled trial in US women veterans.

Authors:  Sally W Vernon; Deborah J del Junco; Jasmin A Tiro; Sharon P Coan; Catherine A Perz; Lori A Bastian; William Rakowski; Wen Chan; David R Lairson; Amy McQueen; Maria E Fernandez; Cynthia Warrick; Arada Halder; Carlo DiClemente
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-02-26       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  The WISDOM Personalized Breast Cancer Screening Trial: Simulation Study to Assess Potential Bias and Analytic Approaches.

Authors:  Martin Eklund; Kristine Broglio; Christina Yau; Jason T Connor; Allison Stover Fiscalini; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2019-01-08

9.  Determinants of Non-Participation in Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Lilu Ding; J Wang; M J W Greuter; M Goossens; Guido Van Hal; Geertruida H de Bock
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 6.244

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.