Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Characteristics of US Counties with No Mammography Capacity

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Community Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Access to screening mammography may be limited by the availability of facilities and machines, and nationwide mammography capacity has been declining. We assessed nationwide capacity at state and county levels from 2003 to 2009, the most recent year for which complete data were available. Using mammography facility certification and inspection data from the Food and Drug Administration, we geocoded all mammography facilities in the United States and determined the total number of fully accredited mammography machines in each US County. We categorized mammography capacity as counties with zero capacity (i.e., 0 machines) or counties with capacity (i.e.,≥1 machines), and then compared those two categories by sociodemographic, health care, and geographic characteristics. We found that mammography capacity was not distributed equally across counties within states and that more than 27 % of counties had zero capacity. Although the number of mammography facilities and machines decreased slightly from 2003 to 2009, the percentage of counties with zero capacity changed little. In adjusted analyses, having zero mammography capacity was most strongly associated with low population density (OR = 11.0; 95 % CI 7.7–15.9), low primary care physician density (OR = 8.9; 95 % CI 6.8–11.7), and a low percentage of insured residents (OR = 3.3; 95 % CI 2.5–4.3) when compared with counties having at least one mammography machine. Mammography capacity has been and remains a concern for a portion of the US population—a population that is mostly but not entirely rural.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kalager, M., Zelen, M., Langmark, F., & Adami, H. O. (2010). Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(13), 1203–1210.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Berry, D. A., Cronin, K. A., Plevritis, S. K., Fryback, D. G., Clarke, L., Zelen, M., et al. (2005). Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 353(17), 1784–1792.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Richardson, L. C., Rim, S. H., & Plescia, M. (2010). Vital Signs: Breast cancer screening among women aged 50–74 years–United States, 2008. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 59, 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Miller, J. W., King, J. B., Ryerson, A. B., Eheman, C. R., & White, M. C. (2009). Mammography use from 2000 to 2006: State-level trends with corresponding breast cancer incidence rates. American Journal of Roentgenology, 192(2), 352–360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ryerson, A. B., Miller, J. W., Eheman, C. R., Leadbetter, S., & White, M. C. (2008). Recent trends in U.S. mammography use from 2000–2006: A population-based analysis. Preventive Medicine, 47(5), 477–482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sabatino, S. A., Coates, R. J., Uhler, R. J., Breen, N., Tangka, F., & Shaw, K. M. (2005). Disparities in mammography use among US women aged 40–64 years, by race, ethnicity, income, and health insurance status, 1993 and 2005. Medical Care, 46(7), 692–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Swan, J., Breen, N., Graubard, B. I., McNeel, T. S., Blackman, D., Tangka, F. K., et al. (2010). Data and trends in cancer screening in the United States: Results from the 2005 national health interview survey. Cancer, 116(20), 4872–4881.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. US Preventive Services Task Force. (2009). Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement, Annals of Internal Medicine 151(10), 716–726, W-236.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Smith, R. A., Cokkinides, V., Brooks, D., Saslow, D., & Brawley, O. W. (2010). Cancer Screening in the United States, 2010: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 60(2), 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee, C. H., Dershaw, D. D., Kopans, D., Evans, P., Monsees, B., Monticciolo, D., et al. (2010). Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol, 7(1), 18–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Doescher, M. P., & Jackson, J. E. (2009). Trends in cervical and breast cancer screening practices among women in rural and urban areas of the United States. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 15(3), 200–209.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Engelman, K. K., Hawley, D. B., Gazaway, R., Mosier, M. C., Ahluwalia, J. S., & Ellerbeck, E. F. (2002). Impact of geographic barriers on the utilization of mammograms by older rural women. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 50(1), 62–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hyndman, J. C., Holman, C. D., & Dawes, V. P. (2000). Effect of distance and social disadvantage on the response to invitations to attend mammography screening. Journal of Medical Screening, 7(3), 141–145.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Larson, S., & Correa-de-Araujo, R. (2006). Preventive health examinations: A comparison along the rural-urban continuum. Womens Health Issues, 16(2), 80–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Meden, T., John-Larkin, C., Hermes, D., & Sommerschield, S. (2002). Relationship between travel distance and utilization of breast cancer treatment in rural northern Michigan. JAMA, 287(1), 111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Penchansky, R., & Thomas, J. W. (1981). The concept of access: Definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Medical Care, 19(2), 127–140.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Unites States Government Accountability Office. (July 2006). Mammography: current nationwide capacity is adequate, but access problems may exist in certain locations, United States Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.

  18. Elkin, E. B., Ishill, N. M., Snow, J. G., Panageas, K. S., Bach, P. B., Liberman, L., et al. (2010). Geographic access and the use of screening mammography. Medical Care, 48(4), 349–356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Elting, L. S., Cooksley, C. D., Bekele, B. N., Giordano, S. H., Shih, Y. C. T., Lovell, K. K., et al. (2009). Mammography capacity: Impact on screening rates and breast cancer stage at diagnosis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(2), 102–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Center for Devices, Radiological Health. (2007). Mammography program reporting and information system (MPRIS), US Food and Drug Administration. MD: Silver Spring.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Meissner, H. I., Klabunde, C. N., Han, P. K., Benard, V. B., & Breen, N. (2011). Breast cancer screening beliefs, recommendations and practices: Primary care physicians in the United States. Cancer, 117(14), 3101–3111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. U S Census Bureau. Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3)—United States (2009). Sample data technical documentation. Available at: http://Factfinder.census.gov. Accessed April 8, 2007.

  23. U S Census Bureau. Small Area Income Poverty Estimates (2009). Available at: http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe. Accessed Aug 12, 2011.

  24. Health Resources and Service Administration. Area Resource File (ARF) 2009–2011. Available at: http://arf.hrsa.gov. Accessed Aug 12, 2011.

  25. US Department of Agriculture. (2003). Measuring rurality: Rural urban continuum codes, Available at: http://www.ers.usda/gov/briefing/rurality/ruralurbcon. Accessed Dec 6, 2010.

  26. Wen, M., Browning, C. R., & Cagney, K. A. (2003). Poverty, affluence, and income inequality: Neighborhood economic structure and its implications for health. Social Science and Medicine, 57(5), 843–860.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, E. (2009). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lynch, J. W., Smith, G. D., Kaplan, G. A., & House, J. S. (2000). Income inequality and mortality: Importance to health of individual income, psychosocial environment, or material conditions. British Medical Journal, 320, 1200–1204.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. De Maio, F. G. (2007). Income inequality measures. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61, 849–852.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Goldman, D. P., & Lakdawalla, D. N. (2005). A theory of health disparities and medical technology. Contributions to Economic Analysis and Policy, 4(1), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Peipins, L., Graham, S., Young, R., Lewis, B., Foster, S., Flanagan, B., et al. (2011). Time and distance barriers to mammography facilities in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Journal of Community Health, 36(4), 675–683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tosteson, A. N., Stout, N. K., Fryback, D. G., Acharyya, S., Herman, B. A., Hannah, L. G., et al. (2008). Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Annals of Internal Medicine, 148(1), 1–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Spelic, D. C., Kaczmarek, R. V., Hilohi, M., & Belella, A. (2007). United States radiological health activities: inspection results of mammography facilities. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal, 3(2), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mullaney, R., Burbage, D., Evantash, A., Penman, E., Napoletano, J., & Grusenmeyer, P. A. (2007). Making the transition to digital mammography. Community Oncology, 4, 678–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2011). MQSA national statistics. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardActandProgram/FacilityScorecard/ucm113858.htm. Accessed Feb 15, 2011.

  36. Bennett, K. J., Probst, J. C., & Bellinger, J. D. (2012). Receipt of cancer screening services: Surprising results for some rural minorities. The Journal of Rural Health, 28, 63–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Trivedi, A. N., Rakowski, W., & Ayanian, J. Z. (2008). Effect of cost sharing on screening mammography in medicare health plans. New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 375–383.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like thank Charles Finder, MD, and Timothy Haran at the Food and Drug Administration’s Division of Mammography Quality and Radiation Programs for their technical assistance. This manuscript was written in the course of employment by the United States Government and is not subject to copyright in the United States. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Funding support was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Contract No. 200-2002-00574, Task order 0015).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Lucy A. Peipins, Jacqueline Miller, Thomas B. Richards, Mary C. White, Djenaba Joseph, Florence Tangka & Donatus U. Ekwueme

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

    Janet Kay Bobo & Ta Liu

  3. Epidemiology and Applied Research Branch, DCPC, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, Mailstop K55, Atlanta, GA, 30341-3717, USA

    Lucy A. Peipins

Authors
  1. Lucy A. Peipins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacqueline Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas B. Richards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Janet Kay Bobo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ta Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mary C. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Djenaba Joseph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Florence Tangka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Donatus U. Ekwueme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucy A. Peipins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peipins, L.A., Miller, J., Richards, T.B. et al. Characteristics of US Counties with No Mammography Capacity. J Community Health 37, 1239–1248 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-012-9562-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-012-9562-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation