Search

Background: Using the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), we examined the effect of question wording on estimates of past-year mammography among racially/ethnically diverse women ages 40-49 and 50-74 without a history of breast cancer. Methods: Data from one-part ("Have you had a mammogram during the past 12 months?") and two-part ("Have you ever had a mammogram"; "When did you have your most recent mammogram?") mammography history questions administered in the 2008, 2011, and 2013 NHIS were analyzed. χ² tests provided estimates of changes in mammography when question wording was either the same (two-part question) or differed (two-part question followed by one-part question) in the two survey years compared. Crosstabulations and regression models assessed the type, extent, and correlates of inconsistent responses to the two questions in 2013. Results: Reports of past-year mammography were slightly higher in years when the one-part question was asked than when the two-part question was asked. Nearly 10% of women provided inconsistent responses to the two questions asked in 2013. Black women ages 50 to 74 [adjusted OR (aOR), 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-1.93] and women ages 40-49 in poor health (aOR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.09-4.52) had higher odds of inconsistent responses; women without a usual source of care had lower odds (40-49: aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85; 50-74: aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.74). Conclusions: Self-reports of mammography are sensitive to question wording. Researchers should use equivalent questions that have been designed to minimize response biases such as telescoping and social desirability. Impact: Trend analyses relying on differently worded questions may be misleading and conceal disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer incidence and mortality display strong geographic patterns worldwide and in the United States (1, 2). The environment where individuals live, work, and play is increasingly being recognized as important across the cancer control continuum, including the risk of cancer development, detection, diagnosis, treatment, mortality, and survivorship (3-5). At the same time, emergent technological capacity in geographic information systems (GIS) and mapping, along with increasing sophistication in applied spatial methods, has resulted in a growing research community developing and applying geospatial approaches in health research (5). Through collaborative, transdisciplinary efforts, and continued data collection efforts, there is great potential to apply these emerging geospatial approaches to various aspects of cancer prevention and control to inform etiology and target interventions and implementation of efficacious risk-reducing strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a funded study by the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) related to the methods of multilevel interventions to improve the quality of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening. Topics discussed include use of periodic screening for reducing cervical and colorectal cancer through the treatment of cancer precursors, review of the grant applications by NCI, and the role of changing incentives of Accountable Care Organizations and Patient Center Medical Homes in research.

The article discusses a study to explore the resources that are being applied to the evaluation of conventional cancer screening tests and genetic and genomic tests of cancer susceptibility. Topics discussed include 2005 review of research evidence and recommendations about genetic testing for mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes released by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, conventional screening tests for cancer like mammography and disease screening program by the World Health Organization.

The authors believe that taking into consideration an entire care process within its multilevel context when designing interventions will improve the quality of cancer care effectively and in a sustainable manner. To demonstrate their case, they describe the multilevel context of care delivery for the follow-up process to an abnormal screening mammogram. They point out many options for intervening and improving follow-up to abnormalities and eventually screening outcomes.

The article details a study on screening mammography which involves a total of 163,490 unique women, aged 50-70, who are enrolled in Washington's Group Health. The data, which identified hormone therapy (HT) dispensing, mammography use and incident breast cancer, were collected from 1994 to 2009. The study found that screening mammography rates by HT use is not capable of explaining invasive breast cancer incidence declines.

The article discusses a research study on system strategies for supporting cancer screening in primary care practice in the U.S. Researchers assessed the systems strategies used for screening of 2,475 primary care physicians for colorectal cancer (CRC), cervical and breast cancer in 2007. Results showed that a comprehensive set of strategies were being used by only 10% of physicians and reports of cancer screening rates were mainly for Papanicolaou (Pap) smear testing and mammography.

The objective of our study was to evaluate organized breast cancer screening implementation by measuring the association between screening program enrollment and late-stage disease. Our setting was a health plan using mailed mammography reminders to women ages > or = 40. We conducted yearly cross-sectional summaries of mammography experience and late-stage (regional or distant Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Reporting (SEER) stage) breast cancer occurrence for all of the health-plan women ages > or = 40 (1986-1998). We estimated the odds of late-stage breast cancer among health-plan and surrounding community women because it was too early to compare changes in mortality. We also estimated the odds of late-stage disease (1995-1998) associated with program enrollment and mammography screening among health-plan women. We found that mammography-within-two-years increased within the health plan from 25.9% to 51.2% among women ages 40-49 and from 32.9% to 74.7% among women ages> or = 50. Health-plan late-stage rates were lower than those in the surrounding community [ages 40-49: odds ratio (OR), 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.77-0.99; ages 50-79: OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.92] and declined parallel to the community. Among health-plan cancer cases, women ages > or = 43 who were enrolled in the screening program and who had at least one program mammogram were less likely to have late-stage disease compared with the women not enrolled in the program (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.61) but the odds of late-stage was also reduced among program-enrolled women not receiving program mammograms (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.95). We concluded that enrollment in organized screening is associated with increased likelihood of mammography and reduced odds of late-stage breast cancer. Addressing the concerns of un-enrolled women and those without mammograms offers an opportunity for further late-stage disease reduction.

This commentary presents a conceptual framework, Quality in the Continuum of Cancer Care (QCCC), for quality improvement studies and research. Data sources include review of relevant literature (cancer care, quality improvement, organizational behavior, health services evaluation, and research). The Detecting Early Tumors Enables Cancer Therapy (DETECT) project is used to apply the QCCC model to evaluate the quality of secondary prevention. Cancer care includes risk assessment, primary prevention, screening, detection, diagnosis, treatment, recurrence surveillance, and end-of-life care. The QCCC model represents a systematic approach for assessing factors that influence types of cancer care and the transitions between them, the factors at several levels (community, plan and practice setting) that potentially impact access and quality, and the strategies groups and organizations can consider to reduce potential failures. Focusing on the steps and transitions in care where failures can occur can facilitate more organized systems and medical practices that improve care, establish meaningful measures of quality that promote improved outcomes, and enhance interdisciplinary research.