Breast cancer screening in the United States and Canada, 1994: Socioeconomic gradients persist

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 90, Issue 5, 2000, Pages 799-803

  Katz, Steven J ^a,c   Zemencuk, Judith K ^b   Hofer, Timothy P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b VA ANN ARBOR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANADA; CANCER SCREENING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; SOCIAL STATUS; SOCIOECONOMICS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0034097383     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.90.5.799     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Calle EE, Flanders WJ, Thun MJ. Demographic predictors of mammography and Pap smear screening in US women. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:53-60.
2. Wilcox LS, Mosher WD. Factors associated with obtaining health screening among women of reproductive age. Public Health Rep. 1993; 108:76-86.
3. Hayward RA, Bernard AM, Freeman HE, et al. Regular source of ambulatory care and access to health services. Am J Public Health. 1991; 81:434-438.
4. Healthy People 2000: Midcourse Review and 1995 Revisions. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 1995. DHS publication 017-001-00-526-6.
5. Katz SJ, Hofer TP. Socioeconomic disparities in preventive care persist despite universal coverage: breast and cervical cancer screening in Ontario and the United States. JAMA. 1994; 272:530-534.
6. Lantz PM, Weigers ME, House JS. Education and income differentials in breast and cervical cancer screening: policy implications for rural women. Med Care. 1997;35:219-236.
7. Preston JA, Scinto JD, Ni W, et al. Mammography underutilization among older women in Connecticut. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45: 1310-1314.
8. Kiefe CI, McKay SV, Halevy A, et al. Is cost a barrier to screening mammography for low-income women receiving Medicare benefits? Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:1217-1224.
9. Gaudette LA, Altmayer CA, Nobrega KM, et al. Trends in mammography utilization, 1981 to 1994. Health Rep. 1996;8:17-27.
10. Bryant H. Breast cancer screening in Canada: climbing the diffusion curve. Can J Public Health. 1996;87:560-562.
11. National Center for Health Statistics HM. Data File Documentation, National Health Interview Survey of Access to Care, 1994 [machine readable data file and documentation]. Hyattsville, Md: National Center for Health Statistics; 1996.
12. Statistics Canada. National population health survey public use microdata file 1994-1995 [CD-ROM]. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada; 1995. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 82M0009XCB.
13. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. National Accounts: Main Aggregates, Vol. I. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 1997:163.
14. Slanetz PJ, Moore RH, Hulka CA, et al. Screening mammography: effect of national guidelines on current physician practice. Radiology. 1997;203:335-338.
15. The Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The Canadian Guide to Clinical Preventive Health Care. Ottawa: Canada Communications Group; 1994:788-795.
16. Cohen L. FPs have vital role in ensuring success of breast cancer screening programs. Can Med Assoc J. 1997;157:442-444.
17. Breen N, Feuer EJ, Depuy S, et al. The effect of Medicare reimbursement for screening mammography on utilization and payment. Public Health Rep. 1997;112:423-432.
18. Weber BE, Reilly BM. Enhancing mammography use in the inner city: a randomized trial of intensive case management. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:2345-2349.
19. Burns RB, McCarthy EP, Freund KM, et al. Black women receive less mammography even with similar use of primary care. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:173-182.
20. Link GB, Northridge ME, Phelan JC, Ganz ML. Social epidemiology and the fundamental cause concept: on the structuring of effective cancer screens by socioeconomic status. Milbank Q. 1998;76:375-402.
21. Wharry S. Canada a country of two solitudes when smoking rates among Anglophones, Francophones compared. Can Med Assoc J. 1997; 156:244-245.