Concordance of population-based estimates of mammography screening

Boudreau, Denise M.; Luce, Casey; Ludman, Evette; Bonomi, Amy E.; Fishman, Paul

doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.07.011

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The rate of mammography maintenance we report here is similar to rates reported in two previous studies of mammography adherence that examined screening behavior across three or more screening cycles (range: 42 – 56%) (20, 30). However, we expected more women to maintain mammography screening, due to unique characteristics of this sample.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Overall, it was a group that should have been especially likely to receive continued mammograms. The modest maintenance rate may reflect, in part, our analyses that used an approximately annual screening interval (although with a 14-month window), a criterion that yields fewer adherent women than does the use of longer intervals (30, 45). Yet, the odds of not getting screening mammograms decreased over time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 14-month boundary provides a two-month window for scheduling. Many mammography facilities have waiting queues for appointments, and it is customary to relax adherence definitions to allow for scheduling and other difficulties not under the control of the patient (11, 30). All women entered PRISM with recent mammograms and were due for another mammogram two to three months after the baseline telephone interview.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Longitudinal Predictors of Nonadherence to Maintenance of Mammography

Gierisch

Earp

Brewer

et al. 2010

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Regular adherence to screening mammography, also known as maintenance of mammography, reduces breast cancer morbidity and mortality. However, mammography maintenance is uncommon and little is know about why women do not maintain regular screening schedules. We investigated longitudinal predictors of women not maintaining adherence.Methods: Participants were insured women enrolled in an intervention trial who had screening mammograms 8 to 9 months before study enrollment (n = 1,493). Data were collected from 2003 to 2008. We used discrete event history analysis to model nonadherence to mammography maintenance over three successive annual screening intervals (+ 2 months).Results: Most (54%) women did not maintain screening adherence over 3 years. Women who did not maintain adherence were more likely to be ages 40 to 49 years, rate their health fair or poor, be less satisfied with their last mammography experiences, report one or more barriers to getting mammograms, be less than completely confident about getting their next mammograms (lower self-efficacy), or have weaker behavioral intentions. The odds of not maintaining adherence decreased over time.Discussion: Although great strides have been achieved in increasing the proportion of women who have received mammograms, most women still are not maintaining regular mammography use over time. Our findings provide insights into targets for future mammography maintenance interventions. Cancer Epidemiol

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Longitudinal Predictors of Nonadherence to Maintenance of Mammography

Gierisch

Earp

Brewer

et al. 2010

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first asked, “On a scale from 0 to 100%, where 0 = certain not to happen and 100 = certain to happen, how likely are you to get breast cancer in your lifetime?” The second asked, “Compared with other women your age, how likely are you to get breast cancer in your lifetime?” Responses ranged from “much below average” to “much above average.” The outcomes of interest were use of screening mammography and CBE within 15 months, as well as genetic testing. Extending the screening interval for mammography and CBE beyond the standard 12 months allows flexibility for factors such as wait-times at imaging facilities [39,40]. Self-reported dates and reasons for screening examinations were obtained from the year 1 PHSQ .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does perceived risk predict breast cancer screening use? Findings from a prospective cohort study of female relatives from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Objective While the relationship between perceived risk and adherence to breast cancer screening guidelines has been studied extensively, the majority of studies are cross-sectional. We prospectively examined this relationship among women with familial risk. Materials and Methods The prospective association between perceived risk and screening behaviors was examined in 913 women aged 25 to 72, with varying levels of familial breast cancer risk from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Associations between perceived lifetime breast cancer risk and subsequent use of screening mammography, clinical breast examination (CBE) and genetic testing were assessed using logistic regression. Results Overall, perceived risk did not predict subsequent use of screening mammography, CBE or genetic testing. Women at moderate/high familial risk who perceived their risk as greater than 50% were significantly less likely to have a CBE (odds ratio (OR) = 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30–0.91, p=0.04), and less likely to have a mammogram (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.40–1.20, p=0.70) or genetic test (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.34–1.10, p=0.09) compared to women who perceive their risk as 50%. In contrast, women at low familial risk who perceived their risk as greater than 50% were non-significantly more likely to have a mammogram (OR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.59–2.16, p=0.78), CBE (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.63–1.95, p=0.74) or genetic test (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.50– 3.33, p=0.35) compared to women who perceive their risk as 50%. Conclusion Perceived risk did not significantly predict subsequent screening use overall, however this relationship may be moderated by level of familial risk. Results may inform risk education and management strategies among women with varying levels of familial breast cancer risk.

show abstract

“…Timeframe notwithstanding, rates of repeat mammography are low. Less than 50% of women obtain two consecutive mammograms on schedule [6,7] with estimates ranging between 20 and 92% [7][8][9]. Another study [8] found that only 42% of women reported 3?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Demographic, System, and Psychosocial Origins of Mammographic Screening Disparities: Prediction of Initiation Versus Maintenance Screening Among Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Women

Consedine

2011

J Immigrant Minority Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disparities in breast screening are well documented. Less clear are differences within groups of immigrant and non-immigrant minority women or differences in adherence to mammography guidelines over time. A sample of 1,364 immigrant and non-immigrant women (African American, English Caribbean, Haitian, Dominican, Eastern European, and European American) were recruited using a stratified cluster-sampling plan. In addition to measuring established predictors of screening, women reported mammography frequency in the last 10 years and were (per ACS guidelines at the time) categorized as never, sub-optimal (<1 screen/year), or adherent (1+ screens/year) screeners. Multinomial logistic regression showed that while ethnicity infrequently predicted the never versus sub-optimal comparison, English Caribbean, Haitian, and Eastern European women were less likely to screen systematically over time. Demographics did not predict the never versus sub-optimal distinction; only regular physician, annual exam, physician recommendation, and cancer worry showed effects. However, the adherent categorization was predicted by demographics, was less likely among women without insurance, a regular physician, or an annual exam, and more likely among women reporting certain patterns of emotion (low embarrassment and greater worry). Because regular screening is crucial to breast health, there is a clear need to consider patterns of screening among immigrant and non-immigrant women as well as whether the variables predicting the initiation of screening are distinct from those predicting systematic screening over time.

show abstract

Concordance of population-based estimates of mammography screening

Cited by 15 publications

References 40 publications

Longitudinal Predictors of Nonadherence to Maintenance of Mammography

Longitudinal Predictors of Nonadherence to Maintenance of Mammography

Does perceived risk predict breast cancer screening use? Findings from a prospective cohort study of female relatives from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry

The Demographic, System, and Psychosocial Origins of Mammographic Screening Disparities: Prediction of Initiation Versus Maintenance Screening Among Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Women

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About