Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26083235›Full record

ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2015

Trends in mammography over time for women with and without chronic disability.

Lisa I Iezzoni, Stephen G Kurtz, Sowmya R Rao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Intersectionality of Race and Question-Asking in Women After Right Hemisphere Brain Damage.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023
    Article
  11. Striving Toward Equity in Health Care for People With Communication Disabilities.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Cancer Disparities Experienced by People with Disabilities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lisa I Iezzoni1 Mongan Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital , Boston, Massachusetts.
Stephen G Kurtz3 Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School , Worcester, Massachusetts.
Sowmya R Rao3 Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School , Worcester, Massachusetts.

Funding

Examining Disparities in Cancer Screening for Persons with DisabilitiesR01CA160286 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI IEZZONI, LISA I. · 2012 to 2013
$456k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA160286-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen with disabilities often receive mammograms at lower rates than do nondisabled women, although this disparity varies by disability type and severity. Given the implementation of disability civil rights laws in the early 1990s, we examined whether disability disparities in mammogram use have diminished over time.

methodsWe analyzed National Health Interview Survey responses of civilian, noninstitutionalized United States female residents 50 to 74 years old from selected years between 1998 and 2010. We identified seven chronic disability types using self-reported functional impairments, activity/participation limitations, and expected duration. We conducted bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses examining associations of self-reported mammogram use within the previous two years with sociodemographic factors and disability.

resultsMost chronic disability rates rose over time. The most common disability was movement difficulties, with rates increasing from 35.6% (1998) to 39.8% (2010). Mammogram rates for all women remained relatively stable over time, ranging from 72% to 75%. Bivariable analyses generally found statistically significantly lower mammogram rates for women with disability versus nondisabled women. Over time, disparities grew significantly between women with any basic action difficulty or complex activity limitation and nondisabled women (p<0.01). In multivariable logistic analyses, having any difficulty with basic actions was significantly associated with lower adjusted odds of mammography; for example, adjusted odds [95% confidence interval]=0.5 [0.3-0.8], p=0.006, in the model involving movement disability.

conclusionsLittle has changed since 1998 in mammogram rates for women with versus without disabilities. Women with certain disabilities continue to experience disparities in mammography testing.

Indexed as

Health StatusPersons with DisabilitiesAgedBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHealth SurveysHumansIncomeInsurance, HealthMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRegression AnalysisSocial SupportSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID26083235
PMCPMC4628215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.