ArticleHealth services research2019
Mammography facilities serving vulnerable women have longer follow-up times.
Article in Health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Culturally Adapted Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention Among Muslim Women in New York City: Results from the MARHABA Trial.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Trial
- Primary Care Physicians' Perceived Barriers to Follow-Up of Abnormal Mammogram Results: Opportunities for Systems-Level Interventions.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Mammography facilities serving vulnerable women have longer follow-up times.Health services research · 2019Article
- Using Public Claims Data for Neighborhood Level Epidemiologie Surveillance of Breast Cancer Screening: Findings from Evaluating a Patient Navigation Program in Chicago's Chinatown.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate mammography facilities' follow-up times, population vulnerability, system-based processes, and association with cancer stage at diagnosis. DATA SOURCES: Prospectively collected from San Francisco Mammography Registry (SFMR) 2005-2011, California Cancer Registry 2005-2012, SFMR facility survey 2012. STUDY
designWe examined time to biopsy for 17 750 abnormal mammogram results (BI-RADS 4/5), categorizing eight facilities as short or long follow-up based on proportion of mammograms with biopsy at 30 days. We examined facility population vulnerability (race/ethnicity, language, education), and system processes. Among women with a cancer diagnosis, we modeled odds of advanced-stage (≥IIb) cancer diagnosis by facility follow-up group. DATA EXTRACTION
methodsMerged SFMR, Cancer Registry and facility survey data. PRINCIPAL
findingsFacilities (N = 4) with short follow-up completed biopsies by 30 days for 82% of mammograms compared with 62% for facilities with long follow-up (N = 4) (P < 0.0001). All facilities serving high proportions of vulnerable women were long follow-up facilities. The long follow-up facilities had fewer radiologists, longer biopsy appointment wait times, and less communication directly with women. Having the index abnormal mammogram at a long follow-up facility was associated with higher adjusted odds of advanced-stage cancer (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.10-1.91).
conclusionsProviding mammography facilities serving vulnerable women with appropriate resources may decrease disparities in abnormal mammogram follow-up and cancer diagnosis stage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.