Journal of Cancer Education

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 156–164 | Cite as

Urban Women’s Preferences for Learning of Their Mammogram Result: A Qualitative Study

Article

Abstract

Research suggests that communication of mammogram results is flawed for many low-income ethnic minority women. This study conducted four focus groups with low-income inner-city minority women (n = 34). The goals of our project were: (1) to elucidate women's experiences learning of their result; (2) to elicit their preferences as to how this communication could be improved; and (3) to gather information to help inform the development of a new tool for communicating mammogram results. Salient themes included dissatisfaction with result communication; difficulty elucidating the meaning of a typical results notification letter; a preference for direct verbal communication of results and for print materials that included pictures, testimonials, and an action plan including a hotline to call with questions; and a strong interest in advance education about the likelihood of having to return for additional follow up. Video and other programs to inform patients before the test about what happens after may improve patient satisfaction and enhance women's understanding of their personal result and follow up plan.

Keywords

Mammography Health communication Breast cancer screening Underserved populations Health literacy Follow-up Adherence Risk communication 

References

  1. 1.
    Burack RC, Simon MS, Stano M, George J, Coombs J (2000) Follow-up among women with an abnormal mammogram in an HMO: is it complete, timely and efficient? Am J Manag Care 6:1102–1113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jones BA, Dailey A, Calvocoressi L et al (2005) Inadequate follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms: findings from the Race Differences in Screening Mammography Process study (United States). Cancer Causes Control 16:809–821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang SW, Kerlikowske K, Napoles-Springer A, Posner SF, Sickles EA, Perez-Stable EJ (1996) Racial differences in timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography. Cancer 78:1395–1402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Press R, Carrasquillo O, Sciacca R, Giardina E (2008) Racial/ethnic disparities in time to follow-up after an abnormal mammogram. J Womens Health 17:923–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adams SA, Smith ER, Hardin J, Prabhu-Das I, Fulton J, Hebert JR (2009) Racial differences in follow–up of abnormal mammography findings among economically disadvantaged women. Cancer 115:5788–5797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Poon EG, Haas JS, Puopolo A et al (2004) Communication factors in the follow-up of abnormal mammograms. J Gen Intern Med 19:316–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kerner JF, Yedidia M, Padgett D et al (2003) Realizing the promise of breast cancer screening: clinical follow-up after abnormal screening among Black women. Prev Med 37:92–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaplan CP, Crane LA, Stewart S, Juarez-Reyes M (2004) Factors affecting follow-up among low-income women with breast abnormalities. J Womens Health 13:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    US Public Law 1998. 105–248:Mammography Quality Standard Reauthorization ActGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karliner LS, Kaplan CP, Juarbe T, Pasick R, Perez-Stable EJ (2005) Poor patient comprehension of abnormal mammography results. J Gen Intern Med 20:432–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones BA, Reams K, Calvocoressi L, Dailey A, Kasl SV, Liston NM (2007) Adequacy of communicating results from screening mammograms to African-American and White women. Am J Public Health 97:531–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marcus EN, Sanders L, Pereyra M, DelToro Y, Romilly AP, Yepes M, Webb Hooper M, Jones BA (2011) Mammography result letters: are they easy to read and understand? J Womens Health 20:545–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ (2004) Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med 36:588–594PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller WL, Crabtree BF (1994) Qualitative analysis: how to begin making sense. Fam Pract Res J 14:289–297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levin K, Brauening PM, O'Malley M, Pisano E, Barrett E, Earp J (2000) Communicating results of diagnostic mammography: what do patients think? Academic Rad 7:1069–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lown BA, Roy E, Gorman P, Sasson JP (2009) Women's and residents' experiences of communication in the diagnostic mammography suite. Patient Educ Couns 77:328–337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raza S, Rosen MP, Chorny K, Mehta TS, Hulka CA, Baum JK (2001) Patient expectations and costs of immediate reporting of screening mammography: talk isn't cheap. Am J Roentgenol 177:579–583Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Battaglia TA, Roloff K, Posner MA, Freund KM (2007) Improving follow–up to abnormal breast cancer screening in an urban population. Cancer 109:359–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baker DW (2006) The meaning and the measure of health literacy. J Gen Intern Med 21:878–883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peerson A, Saunders M (2009) Health literacy revisited: what do we mean and why does it matter? Health Promot Int 24:285–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mojica CM, Bastani R, Ponce NA, Boscardin WJ (2007) Latinas with abnormal breast findings: patient predictors of timely diagnostic resolution. J Womens Health 16:1468–1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yabroff KR, Breen N, Vernon SW, Meissner HI, Freedman AN, Ballard-Barbash R (2004) What factors are associated with diagnostic follow-up after abnormal mammograms? Findings from a U.S. National Survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13:723–732PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zapka J, Taplin SH, Price RA, Cranos C, Yabroff R (2010) Factors in quality care—the case of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests–problems in the steps and interfaces of care. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 40:58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erin N. Marcus
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Darlene Drummond
    • 3
  • Noella Dietz
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of General Internal Medicine, Miller School of MedicineUniversity of MiamiMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer CenterIndian River State CollegeMiamiUSA
  3. 3.Department of English, Communications and Modern LanguagesIndian River State CollegeFort PierceUSA
  4. 4.Department of Epidemiology, Miller School of MedicineUniversity of MiamiMiamiUSA
  5. 5.MiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations