Awareness of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommended changes in mammography screening guidelines, accuracy of awareness, sources of knowledge about recommendations, and attitudes about updated screening guidelines in women ages 40-49 and 50+

BMC Public Health

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Kiviniemi, Marc T ^a   Hay, Jennifer L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^b MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Attitudes about public health recommendations; Awareness of changes; Health communication; Mammography; Screening recommendations

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; AWARENESS; BREAST TUMOR; FEMALE; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SOCIOECONOMICS; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; ADVISORY COMMITTEES; AWARENESS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84867683354     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712458     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-899     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. US Preventive Services Task Force, Ann Intern Med 2009 151 10 716 726 19920272
2. The 2009 breast cancer screening recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force. Woolf SH, Jama 2010 303 2 162 163 10.1001/jama.2009.1989 20068210
3. Screening for Breast Cancer: Recommendations and Rationale. US Preventive Services Task Force, Ann Intern Med 2002 137 5 344 346 12204019
4. More Mammography Muddle: Emotions, Politics, Science, Costs, and Polarization. Berlin L, Hall FM, Radiology 2010 255 2 311 316 10.1148/radiol.10100056 20413746
5. Breast cancer screening in women at average risk and high risk. Griffin JL, Pearlman MD, Obstet Gynecol 2010 116 6 1410 1421 10.1097/AOG. 0b013e3181fe714e 21099612
6. Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, Saslow D, Brawley OW, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2010 60 2 99 119 10.3322/caac.20063
7. Breast Cancer Detection http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content- Binaries/806-374a.pdf
8. American Cancer Society responds to changes to USPSTF mammography guidelines http://pressroom.cancer.org/index.php?s=43&item=201
9. Communicating science: Lessons from the challenge of breast cancer screening. Blake K, American Public Health Association Denver: CO 2010
10. News media coverage of screening mammography for women in their 40s and tamoxifen for primary prevention of breast cancer. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Jama 2002 287 23 3136 3142 10.1001/jama.287.23.3136 12069679
11. Physicians' reactions to change in recommendations for mammography screening. Klabunde CN, O'Malley MS, Kaluzny AD, Am J Prev Med 1997 13 6 432 438 9415788
12. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, Mandelblatt JS, Yakovlev AY, Habbema JDF, Feuer EJ, et al. N Engl J Med 2005 353 17 1784 1792 10.1056/NEJMoa050518 16251534
13. Data and trends in cancer screening in the United States: results from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey. Swan J, Breen N, Graubard BI, McNeel TS, Blackman D, Tangka FK, Ballard-Barbash R, Cancer 2010 116 20 4872 4881 10.1002/cncr.25215 20597133
14. Breast cancer screening trends in the United States and ethnicity. MIranda PY, Tarrif W, Gonzalez P, Johnson-Jennings M, Gonzalez HM, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 2012 21 2 351 357 10.1158/1055-9965. EPI-11-0873 22983100
15. Another round in the mammography controversy. Meissner HI, Rimer BK, Davis WW, Eisner EJ, Siegler IC, J Womens Health 2003 12 3 261 276 10.1089/154099903321667609
16. Impact of National Cancer Institute revised mammography screening guidelines on women 40-49. Morton E, Tambor E, Rimer BK, Tessaro I, Farrell D, Siegler IC, Womens Health Issues 1996 6 5 246 254 10.1016/1049-3867(96)00036-9 8870503
17. Trends in cervical and breast cancer screening practices among women in rural and urban areas of the United States. Doescher MP, Jackson JE, J Public Health Manag Pract 2009 15 3 200 209 19363399
18. Vital signs: breast cancer screening among women aged 50-74 years-United States, 2008. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report 2010 59 26 813 816 20613705
19. What is the impact of genetic counselling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer? A meta-analytic review. Meiser B, Halliday JL, A meta-analytic review. Social science & medicine (1982) 2002 54 10 1463 1470 23135625
20. Women's decision making about risk-reducing strategies in the context of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Howard AF, Balneaves LG, Bottorff JL, J Genet Couns 2009 18 6 578 597 10.1007/s10897-009-9245-9 19802692
21. Living my family's story: Identifying the lived experience in healthy women at risk for hereditary breast cancer. Underhill ML, Lally RM, Kiviniemi MT, Murekeyisoni C, Dickerson SS, Cancer Nursing in press
22. The Public's Response to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's 2009 Recommendations on Mammography Screening. Squiers LB, Holden DJ, Dolina SE, Kim AE, Bann CM, Renaud JM, American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2011 40 5 497 504 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.027 21496748
23. The theory of planned behavior. Ajzen I, Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991 50 2 179 211 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
24. American Association for Public Opinion Research, Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys 6 2009
25. US Census Bureau, Intercensal Population Estimates 2010 -Age, Sex (Female) Race, and Hispanic Origin US Census Bureau, Washington, DC 2010 22143593
26. US Census Bureau, Income 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements Washington, DC: US Census Bureau 2010
27. US Census Bureau, Educational Attainment 2010, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement Washington, DC: US Census Bureau 2010
28. Bureau UC, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010 Washington, DC: US Census Bureau 2011
29. Adherence with colorectal cancer screening guidelines: a review. Subramanian S, Klosterman M, Amonkar MM, Hunt TL, Preventive Medicine 2004 38 5 536 550 10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.12.011 15066356
30. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Beydoun H, Beydoun M, Cancer Causes and Control 2008 19 4 339 359 10.1007/s10552-007-9100-y 18085415
31. Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge. Tichenor PJ, Donohue GA, Olien CN, Public Opinion Quarterly 1970 34 2 159 170 10.1086/267786
32. Motivation and the Knowledge Gap. Viswanath K, Kahn E, Finnegan JR, Hertog J, Potter JD, Commun Res 1993 20 4 546 563 10.1177/009365093020004003
33. The knowledge gap hypothesis: Twenty-five years later. Viswanath K, JR Finnegan J, Communication yearbook Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc 19 edn 1996 187 227
34. A new strategy for cancer control research. Hiatt RA, Rimer BK, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention 1999 8 11 957 964 22983100
35. Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids. O'Connor AM, Legare F, Stacey D, BMJ 2003 327 7417 736 740 10.1136/bmj.327.7417. 736 14512487
36. Cancer screening in the United States, 2011: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, Saslow D, Shah M, Brawley OW, CA Cancer J Clin 2011 61 1 8 30 10.3322/caac.20096 21205832
37. Screening mammography beliefs and recommendations: A web-based survey of primary care physicians. Yasmeen S, Romano PS, Trancredi DJ, Saito NH, Rainwater J, Kravitz RL, BMC Health Services Reserach 2012 12 32 10.1186/1472-6963-12-32
38. The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S, Risk Analysis 1988 8 2 177 187 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x
39. Media-Hype. Vasterman PLM, Eur J Commun 2005 20 4 508 530 10.1177/0267323105058254
40. Mammography screening of women in their 40s: Impact of changes in screening guidelines. Calvocoressi L, Sun A, Kasl SV, Claus EB, Jones BA, Cancer 2008 112 3 473 480 10.1002/cncr.23210 18072258
41. Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E, Public Opinion Quarterly 2005 69 1 87 98 10.1093/poq/nfi002
42. Are lower response rates hazardous to your health survey? An analysis of three state telephone health surveys. Davern M, McAlpine D, Beebe TJ, Ziegenfuss J, Rockwood T, Call KT, Health Serv Res 2010 45 5 Pt 1 1324 1344 20579127
43. Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates From a National RDD Telephone Survey. Keeter S, Kennedy C, Dimock M, Best J, Craighill P, Public Opinion Quarterly 2006 70 5 759 779 10.1093/poq/nfl035
44. Rogers EM, Diffusion of Innovations New York: Free Press 5 2003