Mammography result notification letters: Are they easy to read and understand?

Journal of Women's Health

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 545-551

  Marcus, Erin N ^a,e   Sanders, Lee M ^a   Pereyra, Margaret ^a   Del Toro, Yanisa ^a   Romilly, Ada Pat ^b   Yepes, Monica ^a   Hooper, Monica Webb ^a,c   Jones, Beth A ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b University of Miami Jackson Memorial Medical Center   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

^d YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e Division of General Internal Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; FLESCH KINCAID SCORING; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; LEXILE SCORING; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT OF MATERIALS;

COMPREHENSION; CORRESPONDENCE AS TOPIC; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY; READING; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL;

EID: 79954507880     PISSN: 15409996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2010.2330     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control. E-mail in response to inquiry, July 14, 2010.
2. National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Surveillance Con-sortium. Abnormal interpretations for 2,264,089 screening mammography examinations from 2002-2006\Based on BCSC data as of 2009. Available at www.breastscreening. cancer.gov/data/benchmarks/screening/2009/table3.html Accessed September 29, 2010.
3. Jones B, Dailey A, Calvocoressi L, et al. Inadequate follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms: Findings from the race differences in screening mammography process study (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2005;16:809-821. (Pubitemid 41166546)
4. Yabroff K, Washington S, Leader A, Neilson E, Mandelblatt J. Is the promise of cancer-screening programs being com-promised? Quality of follow-up care after abnormal screening results. Med Care Res Rev 2003;60:294-331. (Pubitemid 36993502)
5. Burack RC, Simon MS, Stano M, George J, Coombs J. Fol¬low-up among women with an abnormal mammogram in an HMO: Is it complete, timely and efficient? Am J Manag Care 2000;6:1102-1113.
6. Press R, Carrasquillo O, Sciacca R, Giardina E. Racial/ethnic disparities in time to follow-up after an abnormal mammo-gram. J Womens Health 2008;17:923-930.
7. Mojica CM, Bastani R, Ponce NA, Boscardin WJ. Latinas with abnormal breast findings: Patient predictors of timely diagnostic resolution. J Womens Health 2007;16:1468-1477 (Pubitemid 350233095)
8. Gorin S, Heck JE, Cheng B, Smith SJ. Delays in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment by racial/ethnic group. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:2244-2252. (Pubitemid 44748771)
9. Kerlikowske K, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham LA, et al. Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up. Radi-ology 2005;234:684-692. (Pubitemid 40250809)
10. Weingart SN, Saadeh MG, Simchowitz B, et al. Process of care failures in breast cancer diagnosis. J Gen Intern Med 2009;24:702-709.
11. American Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts and figures 2009-2010. Atlanta; American Cancer Society. Available at www.cancer.org/acs/groups/ content/@nho/documents/document/f861009final90809pdf.pdf Accessed September 29, 2010.
12. Smith-Bindman, Miglioretti DL, Lurie N, et al. Does utilization of screening mammography explain racial and ethnic differ-ences in breast cancer? Ann Intern Med 2006;144:544-553.
13. Yu X. Socioeconomic disparities in breast cancer survival: Relation to stage at diagnosis, treatment and race. BMC Cancer 2009;9:364.
14. Kaplan CP, Crane LA, Stewart S, Juarez-Reyes M. Factors affecting follow-up among low-income women with breast abnormalities. J Womens Health 2004;13:195-206.
15. Kerner JF, Yedidia M, Padgett D, et al. Realizing the promise of breast cancer screening: Clinical follow-up after abnormal screening among black women. Prev Med 2003;37:92-101. (Pubitemid 36802373)
16. Poon EG, Haas JS, Puopolo A, et al. Communication factors in the follow-up of abnormal mammograms. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:316-323. (Pubitemid 38541511)
17. U.S. Public Law 105-248: Mammography Quality Standard Act. October 9,1998. Available at history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL105-248.pdf Accessed September 30, 2010.
18. Belinfante A. Telephone penetration by income by state. U.S. Federal Communications Commission. March, 2008. Avail-able at hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs- public/attachmatch/DOC-280982A1.pdf Accessed September 30, 2010.
19. Gundelman S, Wagner TH. Health care services utilization among Latinos and white non-Latinos: Results from a national survey. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2000;11:179-194.
20. U.S. Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. Mon-itoring the health care safety net: Web conference, Septem-ber 23-25, 2003. Available at archive.ahrq.gov/news/ulp/safetynetaud/Accessed September 30, 2010.
21. Jones BA, Reams K, Calvocoressi L, Dailey A, Kasl SV, Lis-ton NM. Adequacy of communicating results from screening mammograms to African-American and white women Am J Public Health 2007;97:531-538. (Pubitemid 47280207)
22. Karliner LS, Kaplan PC, Juarbe T, Pasick R, Perez-Stable EJ. Poor patient comprehension of abnormal mammography results. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:432-437 (Pubitemid 40980443)
23. Priyanth A, Feinglass J, Dolan NC, Haviley C, Venta LA. Patient satisfaction with the communication of mammo-graphic results before and after the mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 1998. Am J Radiol 2002; 178:451-456. (Pubitemid 34098059)
24. Kutner M, Greenberg E, Baer J. National Assessment of Adult Literacy. U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. NCES Report 2006470. De-cember 2005.
25. Doak L, Doak C. Teaching patients with low literacy skills. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott, 1996:43-91.
26. Paasche-Orlow M, Taylor H, Brancati F. Readability stan-dards for informed consent as compared with actual read-ability. N Engl J Med 2003;348:721-726. (Pubitemid 36237042)
27. Grossman SA, Piantadosi S, Covahey C. Are informed con-sent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families? J Clin Oncol 1994;12:2211-2215. (Pubitemid 24356041)
28. Cooley ME, Moriarty H, Berger MS, Selm-Orr D, Coyle B, Short T. Patient literacy and the readability of cancer educational materials. Oncol Nurses Forum 1995;22:1345-1351.
29. National Cancer Institute. Dictionary of cancer terms. Available at www.cancer.gov/dictionary/Accessed September 30, 2010.
30. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF. Readability of cancer information on the internet. J Cancer Educ 2004; 19:117-122. (Pubitemid 39167333)
31. Wilson B, Kutner JS, Levy C. Do health insurance plans perpetuate ambiguity about palliative care? J Palliative Med 2008;11:1182.
32. Davis T, Wolf M, Bass P, et al. Low literacy impairs com-prehension of prescription drug warning labels. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:847-851. (Pubitemid 44024931)
33. Wolf MS, Shekelle P, Choudhry N, Agnew-Blais J, Parker R, Shrank WH. Variability in pharmacy interpretations of physician prescriptions. Med Care 2009;47:370-373.
34. Alexander R. Readability of published dental educational materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:937-942.
35. Estrada C, Hryniewicz MM, Higgs VB, Collins C, Byrd JC. Anticoagulant patient information material is written at high readability levels. Stroke 2000;31:2966-2970.
36. Cotugna N, Vickery CE, Carpenter-Haefele KM. Evaluation of literacy level of patient education pages in health-related journals. J Community Health 2005;30:213-219.
37. Lennon C, Burdick H. White paper: The Lexile framework as an approach for reading measurement and success. Meta-metrics, Inc., April 2004. Available at lexile.com/research/1/Accessed October 20, 2010.
38. Helitzer D, Hollis C, Lotner J, Oestreicher N. Health literacy demands of written health info material: An assessment of cervical cancer prevention materials. Cancer Control 2009;16:70-78.
39. Weintraub D, Maliski SL, Fink A, Choe S, Litwin MS. Suit-ability of prostate cancer education materials: Applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materi-als. Patient Educ Couns 2004;55:275-280. (Pubitemid 39458228)
40. D'Alessandro DM, Kingsley P, Johnson-West J. The read-ability of pediatric patient education materials on the world wide web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155:807-812. (Pubitemid 32613784)
41. Davis TC, Mayeaux EJ, Fredrickson D, Bocchini JA, Jackson RH, Murphy PW. Reading ability of parents compared with reading level of pediatric patient education materials. Pe-diatrics 1994;93:460-468. (Pubitemid 24067021)
42. Sabharwal S, Badrudeen S, Unes Kunju S. Readability of online patient education materials from the AAOS web site. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466:1245-1250.
43. Adkins AD, Singh NN. Reading level and readability of patient education materials in mental health. J Child Fam Stud 2001;10:1-8.
44. Dingell JD. Remarks regarding the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 1998. Congressional Record\House of Representatives, 105th Congress, September 15, 1998. Page H7749. Available at frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position = all&page = H7749 &dbname = 1998-record Accessed September 30, 2010.
45. Carney PA. An assessment of the likelihood, frequency, and content of verbal communication between radiologists and women receiving screening and diagnostic mammography. Acad Radiol 2009;16:1056-1063.
46. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration. Maternal and Child Health Bureau. Women's health USA 2008. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa08/Accessed September 30, 2010.
47. American College of Radiology. Accredited facility search Available at www.acr.org/accreditation/accreditedfacilitysearch.aspx Accessed September 30, 2010.
48. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging sample lay report letters. Available at www.acr.org/accreditation/mammography/mammo-sample-letters.aspx Accessed September 30, 2010.
49. Source B. Company press release. Accessed online Septem-ber 15, 2010. Additional information available on request.
50. Source C. Company information. Accessed online September 15, 2010. Additional information available on request.
51. Office of Communications and Public Liason, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health. Clear communica-tion: An NIH Health Literacy Initiative [updated July 20, 2010]. Available at www.nih.gov/clearcommunication/ plainlanguage.htm Accessed September 30, 2010.
52. National Cancer Institute. Clear and simple: Developing effective print materials for low-literate readers. [Updated February 27,2003]. Availableatwww.cancer.gov/aboutnci/oc/clear-and-simple/page1 Accessed September 30, 2010.
53. McCarthy BD, Yood MU, Boohaker EA, et al. Inadequate follow-up of abnormal mammograms. Am J Prev Med 1996;12:282-288. (Pubitemid 26303473)
54. Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE. Systematic review: The long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:502-510. (Pubitemid 351650559)
55. Kahn, BE, Luce, M.F. Understanding high-stakes consumer decisions: Mammography adherence following false alarm test results. Market Sci 2003;22:393-410. (Pubitemid 37306330)
56. Black WC, Nease RF Jr, Tosteson ANA. Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87: 720-731.
57. Rudd RE, Comings JP. Learner developed materials: An empowering product. Health Educ Behav 1994;21:313-327.
58. Bickmore T, Giorgino T. Health dialog systems for patients and consumers. J Biomed Informatics 2006;39:556-571. (Pubitemid 44376586)
59. Battaglia TA, Roloff K, Posner MA, Freund KM. Improving follow-up to abnormal breast cancer screening in an urban population: A patient navigation intervention. Cancer 2007;109(Suppl 2):359-367. (Pubitemid 46106220)
60. Ell K, Vourlekis B, Lee P, Xie B. Patient navigation and care management following an abnormal mammogram: A ran-domized clinical trial. Prev Med 2007;44:26-33. (Pubitemid 46073077)
61. Wells KJ, Battaglia TA, Dudley DJ, et al. Patient navigation: State of the art or is it science? Cancer 2008;113:1999-2010.