Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluating a campaign to detect early stage breast tumors in the United States

  • Published:
European Journal of Epidemiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Growing concern over failure to detect early stage breast cancer has led communities across the United States to participate in the Breast Cancer Awareness Month program. This program mobilizes local public and private institutions, particularly the media, to reach a large audience each October with information on salutary behaviors, including screening, and on resources that can assist newly motivated audiences to adopt the behaviors. Although the scholarly literature includes no assessments of the effect of the program on the actual detection of early stage breast tumors, similar programs targeting other illnesses (e.g., AIDS) are quickly emerging. We attempt such an assessment by applying time-series designs to 92 quarters (beginning January, 1975) of data obtained from cancer registries in the Atlanta and Detroit metropolitan areas as well as in the San Francisco Bay Area. We find that the detection of in situ and local breast tumors increased in all three communities during the quarters that included Breast Cancer Awareness Month. We conclude that community mobilization may have its intended benefit but suggest that community organizers not ignore unintended costs including the emotional and physical sequelae of false positives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Ries L, Eisner M, Kosary C, et al. (eds), SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1997. Bethesda: National Institute of Health, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Satariano W, Ragland D, DeLorenze G. Limitations in upper-body strength associated with breast cancer: A comparison of black and white women. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 535–544.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rogers E, Storey J. Communication campaigns. In: Berger C, Chaffee S (eds), Handbook of Communication Science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hammond S, Freimuth V, Morrison W. The gate-keeping funnel: Tracking a major PSA campaign from distribution through gatekeepers to target audience. Health Educ Behav 1987; 14: 153–166.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arkin E, Romano R, Van Nevel J, et al. Effect of the mass media in promoting calls to the cancer information service. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1993; 14: 35–43.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pierce J, Anderson D, Romano R, et al. Promoting smoking cessation in the United States: Effect of public service announcements on the cancer information service telephone line. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992; 84: 677–683.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gresham L, Molgaard C, Elder J, et al. Breast cancer and mammography: Summary of the educational impact of a low-cost mammography program. Health Educ 1988; 19: 32–35.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mayer J, Kossman M, Miller L, et al. Evaluation of a media-led mammography program. Am J Prev Med 1992; 8: 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jenkins CNH, McPhee SJ, Bird JA, et al. Effect of a media-led education campaign on breast and cervical cancer screening among Vietnamese-American women. Prev Med 1999; 28: 395–406.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sobel J, Gordon D, Kristal A, et al. The Oregon breast cancer detection awareness project: Follow-up of a community-based breast cancer screening campaign. In: Anderson P, Engstrom PF, Mortensen L. (eds), Advances in Cancer Control: Innovations and Research. New York: Alan Liss Inc., 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McCaul KD, Jacobson K, Martinson B. The effects of a state-wide media campaign on mammography screening. J Appl Soc Psychol 1998; 28: 504–515.

    Google Scholar 

  12. National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Available at http://www.nbcam.org/index.cfm. Accessed October 27, 2002.

  13. Shambaugh EM, Weiss MA, Axtell LM. Summary staging guide for the Cancer Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Reporting Program. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wiegersma P, Hofman A, Zeilhaus G. Evaluation of community-wide interventions: The ecologic case-referent study design. Eur J Epidemiol 2002; 17: 551–557.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Catalano R, Serxner S. Time series designs of potential interest to epidemiologists. Amer J Epidemiol 1987; 126: 724–731.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Catalano R. The effect of deviations from trends in national income on mortality: The Danish and USA data revisited. Eur J Epidemiol 1997; 13: 737–743.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Box G, Jenkins G, Reinsel G. Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control. London: Prentice-Hall; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hamilton J. Time Series Analysis. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hillmer S. Monitoring and adjusting forecasts in the presence of additive outliers. J Forecasting 1984; 3: 205–215.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chang I, Tiao G, Chen C. Estimation of time series parameters in the presence of outliers. Technometrics 1988; 30: 193–204.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Raffle A. Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice? Health Expect 2001; 4: 92–98.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, et al. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1089–1096.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dobias K, Moyer C, McAchran S, et al. Mammography messages in popular media: Implications for patient expectations and shared clinical decision-making. Health Expect 2001; 4: 131–139.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Catalano, R., Winett, L., Wallack, L. et al. Evaluating a campaign to detect early stage breast tumors in the United States. Eur J Epidemiol 18, 545–550 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024620617272

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024620617272

Navigation