Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Cancer Causes & Control 1/2012

01.01.2012 | Original paper

Mammography capacity and appointment wait times: barriers to breast cancer screening

verfasst von: Elena B. Elkin, Jacqueline G. Snow, Nicole M. Leoce, Coral L. Atoria, Deborah Schrag

Erschienen in: Cancer Causes & Control | Ausgabe 1/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To assess the impact of mammography capacity on appointment wait times.

Methods

We surveyed by telephone all mammography facilities federally certified in 2008 in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, New Mexico, and New York using a simulated patient format. County-level mammography capacity, defined as the number of mammography machines per 10,000 women aged 40 and older, was estimated from FDA facility certification records and US Census data.

Results

1,614 (86%) of 1,882 mammography facilities completed the survey. Time until next available screening mammogram appointment was <1 week at 55% of facilities, 1–4 weeks at 34% of facilities, and >1 month at 11% of facilities. Facilities in counties with lower capacity had longer wait times, and a one-unit increase in county capacity was associated with 21% lower odds of a facility reporting a wait time >1 month (p < 0.01). There was no association between wait time and the availability of evening or weekend appointments or digital mammography.

Conclusion

Lower mammography capacity is associated with longer wait times for screening mammograms.

Impact

Enhancement of mammography resources in areas with limited capacity may reduce wait times for screening mammogram appointments, thereby increasing access to services and rates of breast cancer screening.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Freedman DA, Petitti DB, Robins JM (2004) On the efficacy of screening for breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol 33:43–55PubMedCrossRef Freedman DA, Petitti DB, Robins JM (2004) On the efficacy of screening for breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol 33:43–55PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Breen N, Gentleman JF, Schiller JS (2010) Update on mammography trends: comparisons of rates in 2000, 2005, and 2008. Cancer. doi:10.1002/cncr.25679 Breen N, Gentleman JF, Schiller JS (2010) Update on mammography trends: comparisons of rates in 2000, 2005, and 2008. Cancer. doi:10.​1002/​cncr.​25679
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Miller JW, King JB, Ryerson AB, Eheman CR, White MC (2009) Mammography use from 2000 to 2006: state-level trends with corresponding breast cancer incidence rates. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:352–360. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1757 PubMedCrossRef Miller JW, King JB, Ryerson AB, Eheman CR, White MC (2009) Mammography use from 2000 to 2006: state-level trends with corresponding breast cancer incidence rates. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:352–360. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​08.​1757 PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryerson AB, Miller J, Eheman CR, White MC (2007) Use of mammograms among women aged >/= 40 years–United States, 2000–2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 56:49–51 Ryerson AB, Miller J, Eheman CR, White MC (2007) Use of mammograms among women aged >/= 40 years–United States, 2000–2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 56:49–51
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Geller BM, Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Abraham LA, Yankaskas BC, Taplin S et al (2003) Mammography surveillance following breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 81:107–115PubMedCrossRef Geller BM, Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Abraham LA, Yankaskas BC, Taplin S et al (2003) Mammography surveillance following breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 81:107–115PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Keating NL, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, Winer EP, Ayanian JZ (2006) Factors related to underuse of surveillance mammography among breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 24:85–94PubMedCrossRef Keating NL, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, Winer EP, Ayanian JZ (2006) Factors related to underuse of surveillance mammography among breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 24:85–94PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Mammography Quality Standards Act (1992) and Reauthorizations (1998, 2004) 1992 Mammography Quality Standards Act (1992) and Reauthorizations (1998, 2004) 1992
9.
Zurück zum Zitat US General Accounting Office (1997) Mammography services: impact of federal legislation on quality, access and health outcomes. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Report no.: GAO/HEHS-98-11 US General Accounting Office (1997) Mammography services: impact of federal legislation on quality, access and health outcomes. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Report no.: GAO/HEHS-98-11
10.
Zurück zum Zitat US General Accounting Office (1998) Mammography Quality Standards Act: X-ray quality improved, access unaffected, but impact on health outcomes unknown. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Report no.: GAO/T-HEHS-98-164 US General Accounting Office (1998) Mammography Quality Standards Act: X-ray quality improved, access unaffected, but impact on health outcomes unknown. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Report no.: GAO/T-HEHS-98-164
11.
Zurück zum Zitat US Government Accountability Office (2002) Mammography: capacity generally exists to deliver services. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Report no.: GAO-02-532 US Government Accountability Office (2002) Mammography: capacity generally exists to deliver services. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Report no.: GAO-02-532
12.
Zurück zum Zitat US Government Accountability Office (2006) Mammography: current nationwide capacity is adequate, but access problems may exist in certain locations. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Report no.: GAO-06-724 US Government Accountability Office (2006) Mammography: current nationwide capacity is adequate, but access problems may exist in certain locations. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Report no.: GAO-06-724
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Fischer R, Houn F, Van De Griek A, Tucker SA, Meyers D, Murphy M et al (1998) The impact of the Mammography Quality Standards Act on the availability of mammography facilities. Prev Med 27:697–701PubMedCrossRef Fischer R, Houn F, Van De Griek A, Tucker SA, Meyers D, Murphy M et al (1998) The impact of the Mammography Quality Standards Act on the availability of mammography facilities. Prev Med 27:697–701PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Korn JE, Casey-Paal A, Lazovich D, Ball J, Slater JS (1997) Impact of the Mammography Quality Standards Act on access in Minnesota. Public Health Rep 112:142–145PubMed Korn JE, Casey-Paal A, Lazovich D, Ball J, Slater JS (1997) Impact of the Mammography Quality Standards Act on access in Minnesota. Public Health Rep 112:142–145PubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Farria DM, Schmidt ME, Monsees BS, Smith RA, Hildebolt C, Yoffie R et al (2005) Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow? Results from a national survey. Cancer 104:491–498PubMedCrossRef Farria DM, Schmidt ME, Monsees BS, Smith RA, Hildebolt C, Yoffie R et al (2005) Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow? Results from a national survey. Cancer 104:491–498PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Hanley JA, Negassa A, Edwardes MD, Forrester JE (2003) Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. Am J Epidemiol 157:364–375PubMedCrossRef Hanley JA, Negassa A, Edwardes MD, Forrester JE (2003) Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. Am J Epidemiol 157:364–375PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Mobley LR, Kuo TM, Driscoll D, Clayton L, Anselin L (2008) Heterogeneity in mammography use across the nation: separating evidence of disparities from the disproportionate effects of geography. Int J Health Geogr 7:32. doi:10.1186/1476-072X-7-32 PubMedCrossRef Mobley LR, Kuo TM, Driscoll D, Clayton L, Anselin L (2008) Heterogeneity in mammography use across the nation: separating evidence of disparities from the disproportionate effects of geography. Int J Health Geogr 7:32. doi:10.​1186/​1476-072X-7-32 PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat D’Orsi C, Tu SP, Nakano C, Carney PA, Abraham LA, Taplin SH et al (2005) Current realities of delivering mammography services in the community: do challenges with staffing and scheduling exist? Radiology 235:391–395. doi:10.1148/radiol.2352040132 PubMedCrossRef D’Orsi C, Tu SP, Nakano C, Carney PA, Abraham LA, Taplin SH et al (2005) Current realities of delivering mammography services in the community: do challenges with staffing and scheduling exist? Radiology 235:391–395. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​2352040132 PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Mammography capacity and appointment wait times: barriers to breast cancer screening
verfasst von
Elena B. Elkin
Jacqueline G. Snow
Nicole M. Leoce
Coral L. Atoria
Deborah Schrag
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2012
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Cancer Causes & Control / Ausgabe 1/2012
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-011-9853-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

Cancer Causes & Control 1/2012 Zur Ausgabe

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

03.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.

CUP-Syndrom: Künstliche Intelligenz kann Primärtumor finden

30.04.2024 Künstliche Intelligenz Nachrichten

Krebserkrankungen unbekannten Ursprungs (CUP) sind eine diagnostische Herausforderung. KI-Systeme können Pathologen dabei unterstützen, zytologische Bilder zu interpretieren, um den Primärtumor zu lokalisieren.

Sind Frauen die fähigeren Ärzte?

30.04.2024 Gendermedizin Nachrichten

Patienten, die von Ärztinnen behandelt werden, dürfen offenbar auf bessere Therapieergebnisse hoffen als Patienten von Ärzten. Besonders gilt das offenbar für weibliche Kranke, wie eine Studie zeigt.

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

25.04.2024 Nierenkarzinom Nachrichten

Nun gibt es auch Resultate zum Gesamtüberleben: Eine adjuvante Pembrolizumab-Therapie konnte in einer Phase-3-Studie das Leben von Menschen mit Nierenzellkarzinom deutlich verlängern. Die Sterberate war im Vergleich zu Placebo um 38% geringer.

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.