Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41502300›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association2026

Patient, facility, and community determinants of timely follow up after abnormal screening mammograms in Appalachia: A multilevel analysis.

Roger T Anderson, Marianne M Hillemeier, Jennifer A Harvey, Fabian T Camacho, Gloribel Bonilla, Cara B Safon, Chris Louis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Patient, facility, and community determinants of timely follow up after abnormal screening mammograms in Appalachia: A multilevel analysis.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026
    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

7 authors.

Roger T AndersonUniversity of Virginia Comprehensive Cancer Center, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Marianne M HillemeierDepartment of Health Policy and Administration, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
Jennifer A HarveyDepartment of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.
Fabian T CamachoDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Gloribel BonillaUniversity of Virginia Comprehensive Cancer Center, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4272-1191
Cara B SafonDepartment of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6183-7750
Chris LouisDepartment of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

American Cancer Society
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeExamine the extent that community and organizational characteristics influence mammogram recall and biopsy rates in Appalachia.

methodsWe collected facility survey and Medicare claims (2016-2018) data on 191 FDA-registered breast imaging organizations serving 2.65 million women in 5 Appalachian states (KY, OH, PA, VA, and WV). Primary outcomes were recall rates and time to recall and biopsy. Generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) (patient level with facility random intercepts) and facility-level structural equation models were used to evaluate multilevel predictors of recall, biopsy, and timeliness. Imaging center service areas (SAs) were constructed using Medicare claims for patient, facility, and community characteristics utilization patterns. Mammogram service capacity was measured using a published tool (BIOPSI).

findingsRural centers had SAs with higher area deprivation index (ADI) scores, lower capacity despite possessing more machines per capita, and were less likely to offer 3D tomosynthesis (3DT). Recall (8%) and biopsy (∼22%) rates were similar by metropolitan status; however, rural centers were more likely to provide same-day exams (P = .021). In GLMM, patient-level predictors included younger age and nonuse of 3DT for recall; and higher ADI and use of 3DT for biopsy. Days to recall was lengthened with dual Medicaid insurance, 3DT, and screening by a stand-alone facility; while days to biopsy was lengthened without the use of 3DT. Community-level pathways were found for days to recall, with rural and smaller facilities achieving significantly fewer days.

conclusionsCharacteristics of rural imaging centers influence efficiency through their resources and community contexts and should be considered in breast cancer screening outcomes research.

Indexed as

MammographyAgedAged, 80 and overAppalachian RegionBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMedicareMiddle AgedMultilevel AnalysisSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsUnited Statesbreast cancer imagingcare qualityorganizational characteristicsrecall rates

Identifiers

PMID41502300
PMCPMC12780644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.