ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2022
Delays in Follow-up Care for Abnormal Mammograms in Mobile Mammography Versus Fixed-Clinic Patients.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guidance for Community Engagement With Underserved Populations in Cancer Care.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Use, Facility Mammography Volume, and Timely Follow-Up After Abnormal Screening Mammograms in Appalachia, United States.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026Article
- Specifying pathway requirements for mobile outreach cancer testing before rollout: an implementation-aware Target Product Profile method.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Socio-Demographic Inequalities in Diagnostic Delays of Breast Cancer: A Multistage Time-to-Diagnosis Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing Timely Follow-up After Inconclusive Screening Mammograms at a 3D Mobile Mammography Center.Cureus · 2024Article
- Patient delay and related influencing factors in Chinese women under 35 years diagnosed with cervical cancer: A cross-sectional study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2023Article
- Rural racial disparities and barriers in mammography utilization among Medicare beneficiaries in Texas: A longitudinal study.Geriatric nursing (New York, N.Y.)Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMobile mammographic services (MM) have been shown to increase breast cancer screening in medically underserved women. However, little is known about MM patients' adherence to follow-up of abnormal mammograms and how this compares with patients from traditional, fixed clinics.
objectivesTo assess delays in follow-up of abnormal mammograms in women screened using MM versus fixed clinics.
designElectronic medical record review of abnormal screening mammograms. SUBJECTS: Women screened on a MM van or at a fixed clinic with an abnormal radiographic result in 2019 (N = 1,337). MAIN MEASURES: Our outcome was delay in follow-up of an abnormal mammogram of 60 days or greater. Guided by Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Utilization, we assessed the following: predisposing (age, ethnicity, marital status, preferred language), enabling (insurance, provider referral, clinic site), and need (personal breast cancer history, family history of breast/ovarian cancer) factors. KEY
resultsOnly 45% of MM patients had obtained recommended follow-up within 60 days of an abnormal screening compared to 72% of fixed-site patients (p < .001). After adjusting for predisposing, enabling, and need factors, MM patients were 2.1 times more likely to experience follow-up delays than fixed-site patients (CI: 1.5-3.1; p < .001). African American (OR: 1.5; CI: 1.0-2.1; p < .05) and self-referred (OR: 1.8; CI: 1.2-2.8; p < .01) women were significantly more likely to experience delays compared to Non-Hispanic White women or women with a provider referral, respectively. Women who were married (OR: 0.63; CI: 0.5-0.9; p < .01), had breast cancer previously (OR: 0.37; CI: 0.2-0.8; p < .05), or had a family history of breast/ovarian cancer (OR: 0.76; CI: 0.6-0.9; p < .05) were less likely to experience delayed care compared to unmarried women, women with no breast cancer history, or women without a family history of breast/ovarian cancer, respectively.
conclusionsA substantial proportion of women screened using MM had follow-up delays. Women who are African American, self-referred, or unmarried are particularly at risk of experiencing delays in care for an abnormal mammogram.
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.