4.4 Article

Perceived barriers to mammography among underserved women in a Breast Health Center Outreach Program

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 208, Issue 3, Pages 425-434

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.03.005

Keywords

Breast cancer; Health beliefs; Health disparities; Mobile mammography; Screening

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award Institutional Research Training [5T32CA009621-22]
  2. Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital
  3. Siteman Cancer Center
  4. NIH via a National Cancer Institute (NCI) [U54CA153460]
  5. NCI Centers for Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer [U54CA155496]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: To investigate perceived barriers to mammography among underserved women, we asked participants in the Siteman Cancer Center Mammography Outreach Registry-developed in 2006 to evaluate mobile mammography's effectiveness among the underserved-why they believed women did not get mammograms. METHODS: The responses of approximately 9,000 registrants were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. We report adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) significant at 2-tailed P values less than .05. RESULTS: Fears of cost (40%), mammogram-related pain (13%), and bad news (13%) were the most commonly reported barriers. Having insurance was associated with not perceiving cost as a barrier (OR .44, 95% CI .40 to .49), but with perceiving fear of both mammogram-related pain (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.60) and receiving bad news (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.60) as barriers. CONCLUSION: Despite free services, underserved women continue to report experiential and psychological obstacles to mammography, suggesting the need for more targeted education and outreach in this population. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available