Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of Women’s Experiences During Mammography on Adherence to Rescreening (United States)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To examine the relationship between womens’ experiences during mammography and their likelihood of being rescreened after receiving a negative or benign mammogram.

Methods

Telephone interview and medical record data were collected from a random sample of enrollees from four states in a national screening program targeting uninsured and underinsured women at least 30 months after they had undergone an index mammogram in 1997. We calculated 30-month rescreening rates by prior mammography characteristics including pain and embarrassment, worry, convenience of appointment time, treatment by staff, and financial considerations.

Results

Of the 2,000 women in the sampling frame, 1,895 (93.6%) were located, 1,685 (88.6%) were interviewed and 1,680 provided data required for our analysis. Overall, 81.5% of the women had undergone rescreening. More than 90% of the women reported being ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with treatment by facility staff, facility location and wait time during the appointment. Statistically significant decreased rescreening rates were seen for women who reported feeling embarrassed and for women reporting dissatisfaction with ability to schedule a convenient appointment time.

Conclusion

These results suggest that providing additional reassurance and privacy may increase rescreening rates.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Eastman P (1997) NCI adopts new mammography screening guidelines for women. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:538–539

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, von Eschenbach AC et al. (2002) American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer. Ca-Cancer J Clin 52:8–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. U.S.Preventive Services Task Force (2004) Guide to clinical preventive services, third edition: periodic updates. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Rockville, MD

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bobo JK, Shapiro JA, Schulman J, Wolters CL (2004) On-schedule mammography rescreening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13:620–630

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sabogal F, Merrill SS, Packel L (2001) Mammography rescreening among older California women. Health Care Financ Rev 22:63–75

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Barr JK, Reisine S, Wang Y et al. (2001) Factors influencing mammography use among women in Medicare managed care. Health Care Financ Rev 22:49–61

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fink R, Shapiro S, Roester R (1972) Impact of efforts to increase participation in repetitive screenings for early breast cancer detection. Am J Public Health 62:328–336

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Glanz K, Resch N, Lerman C, Blake A, Gorchov PM, Rimer BK (1992) Factors associated with adherence to breast cancer screening among working women. J Occup Med 34:1071–1078

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hitchcock JL, Steckevicz MJ, Thompson WD (1995) Screening mammography: factors associated with adherence to recommended age/frequency guidelines. Womens Health 1:221–235

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Horton JA, Romans MC, Cruess DF (1992) Mammography attitudes and usage study, 1992. Womens Health Issues 2:180–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee JR, Vogel VG (1995) Who uses screening mammography regularly?. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 4:901–906

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. O’Byrne AM, Kavanagh AM, Ugoni A, Diver F (2000) Predictors of non-attendance for second round mammography in an Australian mammographic screening programme. J Med Screen 7:190–194

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Phillips KA, Kerlikowske K, Baker LC, Chang SW, Brown ML (1998) Factors associated with women’s adherence to mammography screening guidelines. Health Serv Res 33:29–53

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Potvin L, Camirand J, Beland F (1995) Patterns of health services utilization and mammography use among women aged 50 to 59 years in the Quebec Medicare system. Med Care 33:515–530

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rakowski W, Rimer BK, Bryant SA (1993) Integrating behavior and intention regarding mammography by respondents in the 1990 National Health Interview Survey of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Public Health Rep 108:605–624

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Song L, Fletcher R (1998) Breast cancer rescreening in low-income women. Am J Prev Med 15:128–133

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yood MU, McCarthy BD, Lee NC, Jacobsen G, Johnson CC (1999) Patterns and characteristics of repeat mammography among women 50 years and older. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8:595–599

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rakowski W, Breen N, Meissner H et al. (2004) Prevalence and correlates of repeat mammography among women aged 55–79 in the Year 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Prev Med 39:1–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barr JK, Franks AL, Lee NC, Herther P, Schachter M (2001) Factors associated with continued participation in mammography screening. Prev Medicine 33:661–667

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bastani R, Marcus AC, Hollatz-Brown A (1991) Screening mammography rates and barriers to use: a Los Angeles County survey. Prev Med 20:350–363

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rimer BK, Trock B, Engstrom PF, Lerman C, King E (1991) Why do some women get regular mammograms? Am J Prev Med 7:69–74

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Swan J, Breen N, Coates RJ, Rimer BK, Lee NC (2003) Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer 97:1528–1540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bastani R, Kaplan CP, Maxwell AE, Nisenbaum R, Pearce J, Marcus AC (1995) Initial and repeat mammography screening in a low income multi-ethnic population in Los Angeles. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 4:161–167

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. O’Malley AS, Lawrence W, Liang W et al. (2002) Feasibility of mobile cancer screening and prevention. J Health Care Poor Underserved 13:298–319

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zapka JG, Stoddard AM, Costanza ME, Greene HL (1989) Breast cancer screening by mammography: utilization and associated factors. Am J Public Health 79:1499–1502

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bobo JK, Dean D, Stovall C, Mendez M, Caplan L (1999) Factors that may discourage annual mammography among low-income women with access to free mammograms: a study using multi-ethnic, multiracial focus groups. Psychol Rep 85:405–416

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Quinley J, Mahotiere T, Messina CR, Lee TK, Mikail C (2004) Mammography-facility-based patient reminders and repeat mammograms for Medicare in New York State. Prev Med 38:20–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Brown RL, Baumann LJ, Helberg CP, Han Y, Fontana SA, Love RR (1996) The simultaneous analysis of patient, physician and group practice influences on annual mammography performance. Soc Sci Med 43:315–324

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Burack RC, Gimotty PA (1997) Promoting screening mammography in inner-city settings. The sustained effectiveness of computerized reminders in a randomized controlled trial. Med Care 35:921–931

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Champion V (1994) Relationship of age to mammography compliance. Cancer 74:329–335

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cockburn J, Schofield P, White V, Hill D, Russell I (1997) Predictors of returning for second round screening at a population based mammographic screening programme in Melbourne, Australia. J Epidemiol Commun Health 51:62–66

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Halabi S, Skinner CS, Samsa GP, Strigo TS, Crawford YS, Rimer BK (2000) Factors associated with repeat mammography screening. J Fam Pract 49:1104–1122

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Howe HL (1992) Repeat mammography among women over 50 years of age. Am J Prev Med 8:182–185

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Johnson MM, Hislop TG, Kan L, Coldman AJ, Lai A (1996) Compliance with the screening mammography program of British Columbia: will she return? . Can J Public Health Revue Can de Sante Publique 87:176–180

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lerman C, Rimer B, Trock B, Balshem A, Engstrom PF (1990) Factors associated with repeat adherence to breast cancer screening. Prev Med 19:279–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Levy-Storms L, Bastani R, Reuben DB (2004) Predictors of varying levels of nonadherence to mammography screening in older women. J Am Geriat Soc 52:768–773

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mayne L, Earp J (2003) Initial and repeat mammography screening: different behaviors/different predictors. J Rural Health 19:63–71

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Schapira DV, Kumar NB, Clark RA, Yag C (1992) Mammography screening credit card and compliance. Cancer 70:509–512

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bakker DA, Lightfoot NE, Steggles S, Jackson C (1998) The experience and satisfaction of women attending breast cancer screening. Oncol Nurs Forum 25:115–121

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Orton M, Fitzpatrick R, Fuller A, Mant D, Mlynek C, Thorogood M (1991) Factors affecting women’s response to an invitation to attend for a second breast cancer screening examination. Brit J Gen Pract 41:320–322

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Elwood M, McNoe B, Smith T, Bandaranayake M, Doyle TC (1998) Once is enough–why some women do not continue to participate in a breast cancer screening programme. [comment]. NZ Med J 111:180–183

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Marshall G (1994) A comparative study of re-attenders and non-re-attenders for second triennial National Breast Screening Programme appointments. J Public Health Med 16:79–86

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Garbers S, Jessop DJ, Foti H, Uribelarrea M, Chiasson MA (2003) Barriers to breast cancer screening for low-income Mexican and Dominican women in New York City. J Urban Health 80(1):81–91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ryerson AB, Benard VB, Major AC (2005) National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1991–2002 National Report

  45. Weinstein ND (1988) The precaution adoption process. Health Psychol 7:355–386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. DiClemente CC, Prochaska JO (1982) Self-change and therapy change of smoking behavior: a comparison of processes of change in cessation and maintenance. Addict Behav 7:133–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC (1983) Stages and processes of self-change in smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. J Clin Consult Psychol 51:390–395

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Prochaska JO, Redding CA, Evers KE (2002) The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis F (eds) Health behavior and health education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, pp 99–119

    Google Scholar 

  49. Weinstein ND, Rothman AJ, Sutton SR (1998) Stage theories of health behavior: conceptual and methodological issues. [Review] [38 refs]. Health Psychol 17(3):290–299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. American College of Radiology (1995) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jepson C, Barudin JL, Weiner JR (1997) Variability in the timing of repeat screening mammography. Prev Med 26(4):483–485

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Graubard BI, Korn EL (2005) Predictive margins with survey data. Biometrics 55:652–659

    Google Scholar 

  53. Research Triangle Institute (2001) SUDAAN User’s Manual, Release 8.0. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute

    Google Scholar 

  54. Keemers-Gels ME, Groenendijk RP, van den Heuvel JH, Boetes C, Peer PG, Wobbes TH (2000) Pain experienced by women attending breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 60:235–240

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Consedine NS, Magai C, Neugut AI (2004) The contribution of emotional characteristics to breast cancer screening among women from six ethnic groups. Prev Med 38:64–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000) Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent Data. P. 12. Sex by Age (49) Universe: Total Population. http://factfinder.census.gov/.

  57. U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005) National compensation survey: employee benefits in private industry in the United States, March 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

    Google Scholar 

  58. Chattopadhyay SK, Hall HI, Wolf RB, Custer WS (2005) Sources of health insurance in the U.S.: analysis of state-level data and implications for public health programs. J Public Health Manage 5:35–46

    Google Scholar 

  59. Norman SA, Localio AR, Zhou L et al. (2003) Validation of self-reported screening mammography histories among women with and without breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 158:264–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. McPhee SJ, Nguyen TT, Shema SJ et al. (2002) Validation of recall of breast and cervical cancer screening by women in an ethnically diverse population. Prev Med 35:463–473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Derose KP, Duan N, Fox SA (2002) Women’s receptivity to church-based mobile mammography. J Health Care Poor Underserved 13:199–213

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Reuben DB, Bassett LW, Hirsch SH, Jackson CA, Bastani R (2002) A randomized clinical trial to assess the benefit of offering on-site mobile mammography in addition to health education for older women. Am J Roentgenol 179:1509–1514

    Google Scholar 

  63. Steinberg ME (2001) A mobile mammography program in the workplace. Successful program. AAOHN J 49:325–328

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Epidemiology and Applied Research Branch, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, MS K−55, Atlanta, GA, 30341-3717, USA

    Lucy A. Peipins, Jean A. Shapiro & Zahava Berkowitz

  2. Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA

    Janet Kay Bobo

Authors
  1. Lucy A. Peipins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean A. Shapiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janet Kay Bobo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zahava Berkowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucy A. Peipins.

Additional information

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peipins, L.A., Shapiro, J.A., Bobo, J.K. et al. Impact of Women’s Experiences During Mammography on Adherence to Rescreening (United States). Cancer Causes Control 17, 439–447 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-005-0447-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-005-0447-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation