4.7 Article

Prevalence and correlates of repeat mammography among women aged 55-79 in the Year 2000 National Health Interview Survey

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 39, Issue 1, Pages 1-10

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.12.032

Keywords

mammography; behavioral sciences; women's health; preventive health services

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [K05-CA90485, R01-CA76330] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Utilization of mammography has increased steadily since the early 1990s. It is now important to expand the attention given to obtaining repeat examination. This study examines the prevalence and cross-sectional correlates of repeat mammography, among women aged 55 - 79, using a 12-month (N = 3,502) and a 24-month interval (N = 3,491). Methods. Data were from the Year 2000 Cancer Control Module of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS-CCM). The NHIS-CCM asked about the most recent mammogram and the total number of mammograms over the prior 6 years. An algorithm estimated repeat mammography for the two intervals. Results. Prevalence estimates were 49% for the 12-month interval, and 64.1% for the 24-month interval. Correlates of lower likelihood of repeat mammography for both indicators were: no regular source of care, having public or no health insurance, less than a college education, household income less than $45K, not being married, current or never smoking, age 65-79, and lower absolute risk of breast cancer (Gail Model score). Conclusions. A substantial percentage of women do not receive repeat mammography. The correlates of repeat mammography were similar to those often found for ever-had and recent mammography. There is probably some imprecision in the prevalence estimates due to the nature of NHIS-CCM questions. Issues pertinent to the definition of repeat examination are addressed. (C) 2004 The Institute For Cancer Prevention and 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available