Barriers to Diagnostic Resolution After Abnormal Mammography A Review of the Literature

被引:29
|
作者
Wujcik, Debra [1 ]
Fair, Alecia Malin [2 ]
机构
[1] Vanderbilt Univ, Sch Nursing, Vanderbilt Ingram Canc Ctr, Nashville, TN 37240 USA
[2] Meharry Med Coll, Dept Surg, Nashville, TN 37208 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Barriers; Breast cancer; Delay; Low-income women; Mammography; Minority women; Screening;
D O I
10.1097/01.NCC.0000305764.96732.45
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Breast cancer remains the most common cancer in women, and screening mammography is the best method for early detection. Approximately 10% to 15% of women undergoing screening mammography have abnormal or incomplete findings that require further diagnostic studies. The time to follow up is reported to be between 9 weeks and more than 19 weeks. Evidence indicates that a delay of more than 3 months in women with symptomatic breast cancer is associated with increased rates of breast cancer recurrence and death. The reasons for the delay are varied, and study findings suggest that minority and low-income women experience more delays than other groups do. The results from 22 studies are summarized. The identified barriers to completion of screening mammography were grouped as patient, provider, and system categories. Most of the studies were descriptive, retrospective studies that describe and measure the barriers in varied ways. Patient barriers were the most extensively described barrier, with little attention given to specific provider and system barriers. Women of nonwhite race with lack of insurance emerged as a subgroup that experienced more delay after abnormal or incomplete results. Provider and system barriers are also not well documented, and further exploration of these barriers is also recommended.
引用
收藏
页码:E16 / E30
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Racial differences in timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography
    Chang, SW
    Kerlikowske, K
    NapolesSpringer, A
    Posner, SF
    Sickles, EA
    PerezStable, EJ
    CANCER, 1996, 78 (07) : 1395 - 1402
  • [32] Comparisons of assessment pathways after abnormal mammography screening in Denmark, Norway, and Spain
    Susanne Fogh Jørgensen
    Silje Sagstad
    Javier Louro
    Marta Román
    Xavier Castells
    Solveig Hofvind
    Sisse Njor
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2024, 205 : 135 - 145
  • [33] Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Literature Review of Clinical Uses for Cancer Diagnosis and Surgical Oncology
    Chung, Wai-Shan
    Tang, Ya-Chun
    Cheung, Yun-Chung
    CANCERS, 2024, 16 (24)
  • [34] A Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitators to Mammography in American Indian/Alaska Native Women
    Jerome-D'Emilia, Bonnie
    Gachupin, Francine C.
    Suplee, Patricia D.
    JOURNAL OF TRANSCULTURAL NURSING, 2019, 30 (02) : 173 - 186
  • [35] Diagnostic Yield of High-Resolution Breast Sonography in Detecting Microcalcifications Compared to Mammography
    Ahmadihejad, N.
    Rahmani, M.
    Salavati, A.
    Khaghani, A.
    Shakiba, M.
    IRANIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2009, 6 (02) : 61 - 64
  • [36] Participants' Barriers to Diagnostic Resolution and Factors Associated With Needing Patient Navigation
    Krok-Schoen, Jessica L.
    Brewer, Brittany M.
    Young, Gregory S.
    Weier, Rory C.
    Tatum, Cathy M.
    DeGraffinreid, Cecilia R.
    Paskett, Electra D.
    CANCER, 2015, 121 (16) : 2757 - 2764
  • [37] Comparison of Accuracy of Diagnostic Modalities for Evaluation of Breast Cancer With Review of Literature
    Bukhari, Mulazim Hussain
    Akhtar, Zahid Mahmood
    DIAGNOSTIC CYTOPATHOLOGY, 2009, 37 (06) : 416 - 424
  • [38] Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Technique, Indications, and Review of Current Literature
    Hannsun, Gemmy
    Saponaro, Stephen
    Sylvan, Paul
    Elmi, Azadeh
    CURRENT RADIOLOGY REPORTS, 2021, 9 (11)
  • [39] Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Technique, Indications, and Review of Current Literature
    Gemmy Hannsun
    Stephen Saponaro
    Paul Sylvan
    Azadeh Elmi
    Current Radiology Reports, 9