Geographic Clustering of Adequate Diagnostic Follow-Up after Abnormal Screening Results for Breast Cancer among Low-income Women in Missouri

Annals of Epidemiology

Volumn 17, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 704-712

  Schootman, Mario ^a   Jeff, Donna B ^a   Gillanders, William E ^a   Yan, Yan ^a   Jenkins, Bruce ^a   Aft, Rebecca ^a  

^a Division of Health Behavior Research   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast Neoplasms; Follow Up; Geography; Poverty; Screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; LOWEST INCOME GROUP; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; POVERTY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED STATES; VARIANCE;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTINUITY OF PATIENT CARE; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MISSOURI; POVERTY;

EID: 34548018340     PISSN: 10472797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.03.017     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Taplin S.H., Ichikawa L., Yood M.U., Manos M.M., Geiger A.M., Weinmann S., et al. Reason for late-stage breast cancer: absence of screening or detection, or breakdown in follow-up?. J Natl Cancer Inst 96 (2004) 1518-1527
2. Gumpertz M.L., Pickle L.W., Miller B.A., and Bell B.S. Geographic patterns of advanced breast cancer in Los Angeles: associations with biological and sociodemographic factors (United States). Cancer Causes Control 17 (2006) 325-339
3. Barry J., and Breen N. The importance of place of residence in predicting late-stage diagnosis of breast or cervical cancer. Health Place 11 (2005) 15-29
4. Ward E., Jemal A., Cokkinides V., Singh G.K., Cardinez C., Ghafoor A., et al. Cancer disparities by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. CA Cancer J Clin 54 (2004) 78-93
5. Singh G., Miller B., Hankey B., and Edwards B. Area socioeconomic variations in U.S. cancer incidence, mortality, stage, treatment, and survival, 1975-1999 (2003), National Cancer Institute, Bethesda (MD)
6. Schootman M., Jeffe D.B., Baker E.A., and Walker M.S. Effect of area poverty rate on cancer screening across US communities. J Epidemiol Community Health 60 (2006) 202-207
7. Afzelius P., Zedeler K., Sommer H., Mouridsen H.T., and Blichert-Toft M. Patient's and doctor's delay in primary breast cancer. Prognostic implications. Acta Oncol 33 (1994) 345-351
8. Zapka J., Taplin S., Solberg L., and Manos M. A framework for improving the quality of cancer care: the case of breast and cervical cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12 (2003) 4-13
9. Richards M.A., Westcombe A.M., Love S.B., Littlejohns P., and Ramirez A.J. Influence of delay on survival in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review. Lancet 353 (1999) 1119-1126
10. Yabroff K.R., Washington K.S., Leader A., Neilson E., and Mandelblatt J. Is the promise of cancer-screening programs being compromised? Quality of follow-up care after abnormal screening results. Med Care Res Rev 60 (2003) 294-331
11. Diez-Roux A.V. Bringing context back into epidemiology: variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis. Am J Public Health 88 (1998) 216-222
12. Blakely T.A., and Woodward A.J. Ecological effects in multi-level studies. J Epidemiol Community Health 54 (2000) 367-374
13. Andersen R.M., Yu H., Wyn R., Davidson P.L., Brown E.R., and Teleki S. Access to medical care for low-income persons: how do communities make a difference?. Medical Care Res Rev 59 (2002) 384-411
14. Henson R.M., Wyatt S.W., and Lee N.C. The National Breast and Cervical Center Early Detection Program: a comprehensive public health response to two major health issues for women. J Public Health Manage Pract 2 (1996) 36-47
15. American College of Radiology (ACR). Breast Imaging. Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS TM). 3rd ed. (1998), American College of Radiology, Reston (VA)
16. American College of Radiology: Breast Imaging, Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS TM). 2nd ed. (1995), American College of Radiology, Reston (VA)
17. Cady B., Steele G.D., Morrow M., Gardner B., and Winchester D.P. Evaluation of common breast problems: a primer for primary care providers (1995), US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington (DC)
18. Kerlikowske K., Smith-Bindman R., Ljung B.-M., and Grady D. Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities. Ann Intern Med 139 (2003) 274-284
19. Schootman M., Myers-Geadelmann J., and Fuortes L. Factors associated with adequacy of diagnostic work-up following abnormal breast cancer screening results. J Am Board Fam Pract 13 (2000) 94-100
20. Yabroff K.R., Breen N., Vernon S.W., Meissner H.I., Freedman A.N., and Ballard-Barbash R. What factors are associated with diagnostic follow-up after abnormal mammograms? Findings from a U.S. National Survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13 (2004) 723-732
21. Krieger N., Waterman P., Lemieux K., Zierler S., and Hogan J.W. On the wrong side of the tracts? Evaluating the accuracy of geocoding in public health research. Am J Public Health 91 (2001) 1114-1116
22. Krieger N., Chen J., Waterman P., Soobader M., Subramanian S., and Carson R. Geocoding and monitoring of socioeconomic inequalities in mortality and cancer incidence: does the choice of area-based measure and geographic level matter?. Am J Epidemiol 156 (2002) 471-482
23. Chaix B., Leyland A.H., Sabel C.E., Chauvin P., Rastam L., Kristersson H., et al. Spatial clustering of mental disorders and associated characteristics of the neighbourhood context in Malmo, Sweden, in 2001. J Epidemiol Community Health 60 (2006) 427-435
24. Chaix B., Merlo J., and Chauvin P. Comparison of a spatial approach with the multilevel approach for investigating place effects on health: the example of healthcare utilisation in France. J Epidemiol Community Health 59 (2005) 517-526
25. Kulldorff M., Huang L., Pickle L.W., and Duczmal L. An elliptic spatial scan statistic. Stat Med 25 (2006) 3929-3943
26. Snijders T.A.B., and Bosker R.J. Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (1999), Sage Publications, London (UK)
27. Merlo J., Chaix B., Ohlsson H., Beckman A., Johnell K., Hjerpe P., et al. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidemiol Community Health 60 (2006) 290-297
28. Rasbash J, Browne W, Healy M, Cameron B, Charlton C. MLwiN Beta Version 2.0. In. London: Multilevel Models Project, Institute of Education, University of London; 2003.
29. Ghelfi L.M., and Parker T.S. A county-level measure of urban influence. Rural Dev Perspect 12 (1997) 32-41
30. Kawachi I., and Berkman L. Social cohesion, social capital, and health. In: Berkman L.F., and Kawachi I. (Eds). Social epidemiology (2000), Oxford University Press, New York 174-190
31. Jones B.A., Dailey A., Calvocoressi L., Reams K., Kasl S.V., Lee C., et al. Inadequate follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms: findings from the Race Differences in Screening Mammography Process Study (United States). Cancer Causes Control 16 (2005) 809-821
32. Bobo J.K., Shapiro J.A., Schulman J., and Wolters C.L. On-schedule mammography rescreening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13 (2004) 620-630
33. Chaix B., Merlo J., Subramanian S.V., Lynch J., and Chauvin P. Comparison of a spatial perspective with the multilevel analytical approach in neighborhood studies: the case of mental and behavioral disorders due to psychoactive substance use in Malmo. Sweden. Am J Epidemiol 162 (2005) 171-182
34. Goldstein H., Browne W., and Rasbash J. Partitioning variation in multilevel models. Understanding Statistics 4 (2002) 223-231