Medical records as an alternative to self-report for measuring mammography utilization

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 63-67

  Lazovich, Deann ^a   Casey Paal, Amy ^b   Kom, Jane E ^b   Slater, Jonathan S ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH   (United States)

^c Principal Investigator of the Minnesota Breast and Cervical Cancer Control grant   (United States)

Author keywords

Mammogram reports; Mammography screening; Mammography utilization; Medical records; Self report

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL RECORD; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PILOT STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL RECORDS; MINNESOTA; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PILOT PROJECTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

EID: 0033129464     PISSN: 10784659     EISSN: 15505022     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00124784-199905000-00010     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. NCI Breast Cancer Screening Consortium. “Screening Mam-mography: A Missed Clinical Opportunity—Results of the NCI Breast Cancer Screening Consortium and National Health Interview Survey Studies.” Journal of the American Medical Association 264 (1990): 54-58
2. Horton, J.A., et al. “Mammography Attitudes and Usage Study, 1992.” Women’s Health Issues 2 (1992): 180-6
3. Breen, N., and Kessler, L. “Changes in the Use of Screening Mammography: Evidence from the 1987 and 1990 National Health Interview Surveys.” American Journal of Public Health 84 (1994): 62-67
4. King, E.S., et al. “How Valid Are Mammography Self-Reports?” American Journal of Public Health 80 (1990): 1386” 1388
5. Degnan, D., et al. “Measuring the Use of Mammography: Two Methods Compared.” American Journal of Public Health 82 (1992): 1386-1388
6. Etzi, S., et al. “The Use of Mammography Vans by Low-ln- come Women: The Accuracy of Self-Reports.” American Journal of Public Health 84 (1994): 107-109
7. Fulton-Kehoe, D., et al. “Are Self-Reported Dates of Mammograms Accurate?” Public Health Review 20 (1993): 233-240
8. Gordon, N.P., et al. “Concordance of Self-Reported Data and Medical Record Audit for Six Cancer Screening Procedures.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 85 (1993): 566-570
9. Suarez, L., et al. “Validity of Pap Smear and Mammogram Self-Reports in a Low Income Hispanic Population.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 11 (1995): 94-98
10. Hiatt, R.A., et al. “Agreement between Self-Reported Early Cancer Detection Practices and Medical Audits among His-panic and Non-Hispanic White Health Plan Members in Northern California.” Preventive Medicine 24 (1995): 278-285
11. Montano, D.E., and. Phillips, W.R. “Cancer Screening by Pri-mary Care Physicians: A Comparison of Rates Obtained from Physician Self-Report, Patient Survey, and Chart Audit.” American Journal of Public Health 85 (1995): 795-800
12. Paskett, E.D., et al. “Validation of Self-Reported Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Tests among Low-lncome Minor-ity Women.” Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Preven-tion 5 (1996): 721-726
13. Zapka, J.G., et al. “Mammography Use among Sociodemo- graphically Diverse Women: The Accuracy of Self-Report.” American Journal of Public Health 86 (1996): 1016-1021
14. Warnecke, R.B., et al. “Cognitive Aspects of Recalling and Reporting Health-Related Events: Papanicolaou Smears, Clinical Breast Examinations, and Mammograms.” American Journal of Epidemiology 146 (1997): 982-992
15. State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes, 1994
16. Henson, R.M., et al. “The National Breast and Cervical Can-cer Early Detection Program: A Comprehensive Public Health Response to Two Major Health Issues for Women.” Journal of Public Health Management Practice 2 (1996): 36-47
17. Public Health Service. Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. Public Health Service No. 91-50212. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1990
18. Minnesota Department of Health. Minnesota Public Health Coals. Publication No. A-021. Minneapolis: Minnesota De-partment of Health, 1995
19. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institute of Health, Office for Protection from Research Risks. Protection of Human Subjects. 45 CFR 46. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institute of Health, Office for Protection from Research Risks, 1996
20. Armstrong, B.K., et al. Principles of Exposure Measurement in Epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992
21. Curry, S.J., et al. “A Randomized Trial of the Impact of Risk Assessment and Feedback on Participation in Mammography Screening.” Preventive Medicine 22 (1993): 350-360