Differences in Barriers to Mammography Between Rural and Urban Women

Department of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA 71130, USA.
Journal of Women's Health (Impact Factor: 2.05). 04/2012; 21(7):748-55. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2011.3397
Source: PubMed


Few studies have examined differences between rural and urban women in mammography barriers, knowledge, and experiences. Exploring differences can help inform tailored interventions.
Women, aged ≥40, who had not been screened in the past 2 years were recruited from eight federally qualified health centers across Louisiana. They were given a structured interview assessing mammography knowledge, beliefs, barriers, experiences, and literacy.
Of the 1189 patients who participated, 65.0% were African American, 61.6% were rural, and 44.0% had low literacy. Contrary to guidelines, most believed mammography should be done annually (74.3%) before age 40 (70.5%). Compared to urban women, rural participants were more likely to believe mammography will find small breast lumps early (34.4% vs. 6.5%, p<0.0001) and strongly disagree that mammography is embarrassing (14.6% vs. 8.4%, p=0.0002) or that they are afraid of finding something wrong (21.2% vs.12.3%, p=0.007). Rural women were more likely to report a physician recommendation for mammography (84.3% vs. 76.5%, p=0.006), but they were less likely to have received education (57.2% vs. 63.6%, p=0.06) or to have ever had a mammogram (74.8% vs. 78.1%, p=0.007). In multivariate analyses controlling for race, literacy, and age, all rural/urban differences remained significant, except for receipt of a mammogram.
Most participants were unclear about when they should begin mammography. Rural participants reported stronger positive beliefs, higher self-efficacy, fewer barriers, and having a physician recommendation for mammography but were less likely to receive education or screening.

8 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has become the preferred method for axillary nodal staging. The authors examined SLNB utilization in urban versus rural settings as this procedure was adopted and hypothesized that SLNB rates among urban populations increased faster, while the technology shift and acceptance of SLNB were slower at rural centers. The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database was used to identify patients with invasive node-negative ductal or lobular breast cancer diagnosed from 1998 to 2008. Exclusion criteria were distant metastatic disease, T4 tumors, or incomplete data. Residential setting was divided into groups on the basis of population density. The overall rate of SLNB increased with time (from 10% in 1998 to 73% in 2008). The adoption of SLNB was slower in rural settings than among urban populations (P < .001). By 2003, only urban areas were using SLNB in >50% of cases. Overall, there was a 2-year lag between the increases in SLNB utilization rates in these groups. There was a significant difference in SLNB rates according to tumor size. The overall rate of SLNB remained near 50% and was lower in rural locations in 2004. By 2008, the SLNB rate for T1 and T2 tumors had increased to >50% in all population categories. SLNB utilization was lower in all population categories as tumor size increased. There was an overall 2-year lag in the adoption of SLNB in less populated areas. Although this may represent a more conservative approach, the difference may be attributable to a shortage of experienced surgeons, lack of training, or lack of technological support at smaller institutions.
    American journal of surgery 09/2013; 206(5). DOI:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.07.007 · 2.29 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions designed to promote mammography in safety-net settings. A three-arm, quasi-experimental evaluation was conducted among eight federally qualified health clinics in predominately rural Louisiana. Mammography screening efforts included: 1) enhanced care, 2) health literacy-informed education of patients, and 3) education plus nurse support. Outcomes included mammography screening completion within 6 months and incremental cost-effectiveness. Overall, 1,181 female patients ages 40 and over who were eligible for routine mammography were recruited. Baseline screening rates were < 10 %. Post intervention screening rates were 55.7 % with enhanced care, 51.8 % with health literacy-informed education and 65.8 % with education and nurse support. After adjusting for race, marital status, self-efficacy and literacy, patients receiving health-literacy informed education were not more likely to complete mammographic screening than those receiving enhanced care; those additionally receiving nurse support were 1.37-fold more likely to complete mammographic screening than those receiving the brief education (95 % Confidence Interval 1.08-1.74, p = 0.01). The incremental cost per additional women screened was $2,457 for literacy-informed education with nurse support over literacy-informed education alone. Mammography rates were increased substantially over existing baseline rates in all three arms with the educational initiative, with nurse support and follow-up being the most effective option. However, it is not likely to be cost-effective or affordable in resource-limited clinics.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 12/2013; 29(4). DOI:10.1007/s11606-013-2743-3 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Our previous three-arm comparative effectiveness intervention in community clinic patients who were not up-to-date with screening resulted in mammography rates over 50% in all arms. Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the three interventions on improving biennial screening rates among eligible patients. Methods: A three-arm quasi-experimental evaluation was conducted in eight community clinics from 2008 to 2011. Screening efforts included (1) enhanced care: Participants received an in-person recommendation from a research assistant (RA) in year 1, and clinics followed usual clinic protocol for scheduling screening mammograms; (2) education intervention: Participants received education and in-person recommendation from an RA in year 1, and clinics followed usual clinic protocol for scheduling mammograms; or (3) nurse support: A nurse manager provided in-person education and recommendation, scheduled mammograms, and followed up with phone support. In all arms, mammography was offered at no cost to uninsured patients. Results: Of 624 eligible women, biennial mammography within 24-30 months of their previous test was performed for 11.0% of women in the enhanced-care arm, 7.1% in the education- intervention arm, and 48.0% in the nurse-support arm (p<0.0001). The incremental cost was $1,232 per additional woman undergoing screening with nurse support vs. enhanced care and $1,092 with nurse support vs. education. Conclusions: Biennial mammography screening rates were improved by providing nurse support but not with enhanced care or education. However, this approach was not cost-effective.
    Journal of Women's Health 02/2015; 24(4). DOI:10.1089/jwh.2014.4967 · 2.05 Impact Factor