Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May;37(7):1619-1625.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-07189-3. Epub 2022 Feb 25.

Delays in Follow-up Care for Abnormal Mammograms in Mobile Mammography Versus Fixed-Clinic Patients

Suzanne S Vang  1 , Alexandra Dunn  2 , Laurie R Margolies  3 , Lina Jandorf  4
Affiliations

Delays in Follow-up Care for Abnormal Mammograms in Mobile Mammography Versus Fixed-Clinic Patients

Suzanne S Vang et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2022 May.

Abstract

Background: Mobile 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.

Objectives: To assess delays in follow-up of abnormal mammograms in women screened using MM versus fixed clinics.

Design: Electronic 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 results: Only 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.

Conclusions: A 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.

Keywords: abnormal mammogram; breast cancer; mobile mammography; screening; underserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Conceptual framework for analyzing factors associated with timely follow-up based on Andersen’s behavioral model of health services utilization
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2021;71(1):7–33. - PubMed
    1. Brown ML, Houn F, Sickles EA, Kessler LG. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:1373–1377. doi: 10.2214/ajr.165.6.7484568. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW. Screening for breast cancer. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1245–1256. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1245. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zuckerman HC. The role of mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. In: Ariel IM, Clearly JB, editors. Breast Cancer—Diagnosis and Treatment. 8. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1987. pp. 152–172.
    1. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1995;273(2):149–154. doi: 10.1001/jama.1995.03520260071035. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types