Top

Cancer Causes & Control

Published in:

01-10-2009 | Original Paper

Impact of geography on mammography use in California

Authors: Monica C. Jackson, William W. Davis, William Waldron, Timothy S. McNeel, Ruth Pfeiffer, Nancy Breen

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 8/2009

Abstract

Objective

Despite its benefit, about 30% of women report that they did not have a recent mammogram. We examine impact of distance, rural–urban residence, and other characteristics on mammography screening rates.

Methods

We linked data on 33,938 women aged 40–84 years from the 2003 and 2005 California Health Interview Survey with FDA data on the location of mammography facilities in California, and with socioeconomic and geographic variables from the 2000 Census. We use logistic regression models to estimate the impact of selected variables on a woman’s probability of having had a recent mammogram and developed a new mapping scheme to help visualize differences in mammography use across California.

Results

Though distance to a facility did not impact a woman’s probability of having had a recent mammogram, women who resided in urban areas had somewhat higher screening rates than those living in more rural areas, as displayed on our map.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that more research is needed on possible disparities in access to mammography between rural and non-rural areas in California. Therefore, data adequately powered to examine rural populations and to compare them with urban populations are needed.

Shapiro S (1977) Evidence on screening for breast cancer from a randomized trial. Cancer 39(6 suppl):2772–2782. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(197706)39:6≤2772::AID-CNCR2820390665≥3.0.CO;2-K PubMedCrossRef

Meissner HI, Breen N, Taubman ML, Vernon SW, Graubard BI (2007) Which women aren’t getting mammograms and why? (United States). Cancer Causes Control 18(1):61–70. doi:10.1007/s10552-006-0078-7 PubMedCrossRef

Hiatt RA, Klabunde C, Breen N, Swan J, Ballard-Barbash R (2002) Cancer screening practices from National Health Interview Surveys: past, present, and future. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(24):1837–1846PubMed

Swan J, Breen N, Coates RJ, Rimer BK, Lee NC (2003) Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer 97(6):1528–1540. doi:10.1002/cncr.11208 PubMedCrossRef

Breen N, Wagener DK, Brown ML, Davis WW, Ballard-Barbash R (2001) Progress in cancer screening over a decade: results of cancer screening from the 1987, 1992, and 1998 National Health Interview Surveys. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(22):1704–1713. doi:10.1093/jnci/93.22.1704 PubMedCrossRef

Rimer B, Meissner H, Breen N, Legler J, Coyne C (2001) Social and behavioral interventions to increase breast cancer screenings. In: Schneiderman N, Speers M, Silva J, Tomes H, Gentry J (eds) Integrating behavioral and social sciences with public health. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 177–201CrossRef

Ward MM, Vaughn TE, Uden-Holman T et al (2002) Physician knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding a widely implemented guideline. J Eval Clin Pract 8(2):155–162. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.2002.00337.x PubMedCrossRef

Mandelblatt JS, Yabroff KR (1999) Effectiveness of interventions designed to increase mammography use: a meta-analysis of provider-targeted strategies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8(9):759–767PubMed

Roetzheim RG, Fox SA, Leake B (1995) Physician-reported determinants of screening mammography in older women: the impact of physician and practice characteristics. J Am Geriatr Soc 43(12):1398–1402PubMed

10.

Breen N, Meissner HI (2005) Toward a system of cancer screening in the United States: trends and opportunities. Annu Rev Public Health 26:561–582. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144703 PubMedCrossRef

11.

Legler J, Breen N, Meissner H, Malec D, Coyne C (2002) Predicting patterns of mammography use: a geographic perspective on national needs for intervention research. Health Serv Res 37(4):929–947. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0560.2002.59.x PubMedCrossRef

12.

Coughlin SS, Leadbetter S, Richards T, Sabatino SA (2008) Contextual analysis of breast and cervical cancer screening and factors associated with health care access among United States women, 2002. Soc Sci Med 66(2):260–275. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.09.009 PubMedCrossRef

13.

Fortney JC, Booth BM, Blow FC, Bunn JY (1995) The effects of travel barriers and age on the utilization of alcoholism treatment aftercare. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 21(3):391–406. doi:10.3109/00952999509002705 PubMedCrossRef

14.

Marcus SC, Fortney JC, Olfson M, Ryan ND (1997) Travel distance to outpatient treatment for depression. Psychiatr Serv 48(8):1005PubMed

15.

Mayer JD (1983) The distance behavior of hospital patients: a disaggregated analysis. Soc Sci Med 17(12):819–827. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(83)90032-1 PubMedCrossRef

16.

Brustrom JE, Hunter DC (2001) Going the distance: how far will women travel to undergo free mammography? Mil Med 166(4):347–349PubMed

17.

Baines CJ, To T, Wall C (1990) Women’s attitudes to screening after participation in the National Breast Screening Study. A questionnaire survey. Cancer 65(7):1663–1669. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19900401)65:7≤1663::AID-CNCR2820650735≥3.0.CO;2-A PubMedCrossRef

18.

Richardson A (1990) Factors likely to affect participation in mammographic screening. N Z Med J 103(887):155–156PubMed

19.

Casey MM, Thiede Call K, Klingner JM (2001) Are rural residents less likely to obtain recommended preventive healthcare services? Am J Prev Med 21(3):182–188. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00349-X PubMedCrossRef

20.

Clarke PM (1998) Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach. J Health Econ 17(6):767–787. doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(98)00031-9 PubMedCrossRef

21.

Monroe AC, Ricketts TC, Savitz LA (1992) Cancer in rural versus urban populations: a review. J Rural Health 8(3):212–220. doi:10.1111/j.1748-0361.1992.tb00354.x PubMedCrossRef

22.

Kreher NE, Hickner JM, MTt Ruffin, Lin CS (1995) Effect of distance and travel time on rural women’s compliance with screening mammography: an UPRNet study. Upper Peninsula Research Network. J Fam Pract 40(2):143–147PubMed

23.

Engelman KK, Hawley DB, Gazaway R et al (2002) Impact of geographic barriers on the utilization of mammograms by older rural women. J Am Geriatr Soc 50(1):62–68. doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50009.x PubMedCrossRef

24.

Hall HI, Uhler RJ, Coughlin SS, Miller DS (2002) Breast and cervical cancer screening among Appalachian women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 11(1):137–142PubMed

25.

Coughlin SS, Thompson TD, Hall HI, Logan P, Uhler RJ (2002) Breast and cervical carcinoma screening practices among women in rural and nonrural areas of the United States, 1998–1999. Cancer 94(11):2801–2812. doi:10.1002/cncr.10577 PubMedCrossRef

26.

Nuworsoo C (2007) Defining sampling districts for household travel surveys: case study of the Baltimore, Maryland, Metropolitan Area. Transp Res Rec 2014:32–38. doi:10.3141/2014-05 CrossRef

27.

Mobley LR, Kuo TM, Driscoll D, Clayton L, Anselin L (2008) Heterogeneity in mammography use across the nation: separating evidence of disparities from the disproportionate effects of geography. Int J Health Geogr 7(1):32. doi:10.1186/1476-072X-7-32 PubMedCrossRef

28.

Barry J, Breen N (2005) The importance of place of residence in predicting late-stage diagnosis of breast or cervical cancer. Health Place 11(1):15–29. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2003.12.002 PubMedCrossRef

29.

Gumpertz ML, Pickle LW, Miller BA, Bell BS (2006) Geographic patterns of advanced breast cancer in Los Angeles: associations with biological and sociodemographic factors (United States). Cancer Causes Control 17(3):325–339. doi:10.1007/s10552-005-0513-1 PubMedCrossRef

30.

Zenk SN, Tarlov E, Sun J (2006) Spatial equity in facilities providing low- or no-fee screening mammography in Chicago neighborhoods. J Urban Health 83(2):195–210. doi:10.1007/s11524-005-9023-4 PubMedCrossRef

31.

Barrett RE, Cho YI, Weaver KE et al (2008) Neighborhood change and distant metastasis at diagnosis of breast cancer. Ann Epidemiol 18(1):43–47. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.07.001 PubMedCrossRef

32..

Medical Service Study Areas (2005) Population Center-Medical Service Study Area, MSSA 2000. California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development

33.

Survey California Health Interview (2005) CHIS 2003 methodology series: report 2—sample design. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Los Angeles

34.

Survey California Health Interview (2007) CHIS 2005 methodology series: report 2—sample design. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Los Angeles

35.

Survey California Health Interview (2007) CHIS 2005 methodology series: report 5—weighting and variance estimation. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Los Angeles

36.

Survey California Health Interview (2005) CHIS 2003 methodology series: report 5—weighting and variance estimation. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Los Angeles

37.

Lane DS (2000) A threat to the public health workforce: evidence from trends in preventive medicine certification and training. Am J Prev Med 18(1):87–96. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00111-7 PubMedCrossRef

38.

Waitzman NJ, Smith KR (1998) Phantom of the area: poverty-area residence and mortality in the United States. Am J Public Health 88(6):973–976. doi:10.2105/AJPH.88.6.973 PubMedCrossRef

39.

Diez Roux AV (2001) Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health. Am J Public Health 91(11):1783–1789PubMedCrossRef

40.

Research Triangle Institute (2004) SUDAAN language manual: release 9.0, 9th edn. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC

41.

Wolter K (1984) Introduction to variance estimation. Springer-Verlag, New York

42.

Lee S, Davis W, Nguyen H et al. (2006) Examining trends and averages using combined cross-sectional survey data from multiple years. California Health Interview Survey. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Los Angeles

43.

Moore DS, McCabe GP, Craig BA (2009) Introduction to the practice of statistics. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York

44.

Rao RS, Graubard BI, Breen N, Gastwirth JL (2004) Understanding the factors underlying disparities in cancer screening rates using the Peters-Belson approach: results from the 1998 National Health Interview Survey. Med Care 42(8):789–800. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000132838.29236.7e PubMedCrossRef

45.

Nass S, Ball J (eds) (2005) Improving mammography quality standards. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

46.

Reynolds P, Hurley S, Goldberg DE et al (2004) Regional variations in breast cancer among california teachers. Epidemiology 15(6):746–754. doi:10.1097/01.ede.0000134863.45834.50 PubMedCrossRef

47.

Anderson LM, May DS (1995) Has the use of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening increased in the United States? Am J Public Health 85(6):840–842. doi:10.2105/AJPH.85.6.840 PubMedCrossRef

48.

Breen N, Kessler L (1994) Changes in the use of screening mammography: evidence from the 1987 and 1990 National Health Interview Surveys. Am J Public Health 84(1):62–67. doi:10.2105/AJPH.84.1.62 PubMedCrossRef

49.

Calle EE, Flanders WD, Thun MJ, Martin LM (1993) Demographic predictors of mammography and Pap smear screening in US women. Am J Public Health 83(1):53–60PubMed

50.

Zhang P, Tao G, Irwin KL (2000) Utilization of preventive medical services in the United States: a comparison between rural and urban populations. J Rural Health 16(4):349–356. doi:10.1111/j.1748-0361.2000.tb00485.x PubMedCrossRef

51.

Survey California Health Interview (2005) CHIS 2003 methodology series: report 4—response rates. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Los Angleles

52.

Survey California Health Interview (2007) CHIS 2005 methodology series: report 4—response rates, 1st edn. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Los Angeles

53.

Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E (2005) Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly 69:87–98. doi:10.1093/poq/nfi002 CrossRef

54.

Groves R (2006) Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opin Q 70:646–675. doi:10.1093/poq/nfl033 CrossRef

55.

Survey California Health Interview (2003) CHIS technical paper no. 1—the CHIS 2001 sample: response rate and representativeness. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Los Angeles

56.

Survey California Health Interview (2007) CHIS 2005 methodology series: report 1—sample design. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Los Angeles

57.

Blumberg SJ, Luke JV, Cynamon ML (2006) Telephone coverage and health survey estimates: evaluating the need for concern about wireless substitution. Am J Public Health 96(5):926–931. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.057885 PubMedCrossRef

58.

Skaer TL, Robison LM, Sclar DA, Harding GH (1996) Financial incentive and the use of mammography among Hispanic migrants to the United States. Health Care Women Int 17(4):281–291PubMedCrossRef

Title: Impact of geography on mammography use in California
Authors: Monica C. Jackson
William W. Davis
William Waldron
Timothy S. McNeel
Ruth Pfeiffer
Nancy Breen
Publication date: 01-10-2009
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 8/2009
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-009-9355-6

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2009

Investigating reversals of association for utilization of recent mammography among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Black women

Neighborhood socioeconomic status influences the survival of elderly patients with myelodysplastic syndromes in the United States

Family cancer history affecting risk of colorectal cancer in a prospective cohort of Chinese women

Socioeconomic status and prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates among the diverse population of California

Impact of a mixed strength and endurance exercise intervention on levels of adiponectin, high molecular weight adiponectin and leptin in breast cancer survivors

Ionizing radiation: a risk factor for mesothelioma

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer