Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Mammography capacity and appointment wait times: barriers to breast cancer screening

  • Original paper
  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To assess the impact of mammography capacity on appointment wait times.

Methods

We surveyed by telephone all mammography facilities federally certified in 2008 in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, New Mexico, and New York using a simulated patient format. County-level mammography capacity, defined as the number of mammography machines per 10,000 women aged 40 and older, was estimated from FDA facility certification records and US Census data.

Results

1,614 (86%) of 1,882 mammography facilities completed the survey. Time until next available screening mammogram appointment was <1 week at 55% of facilities, 1–4 weeks at 34% of facilities, and >1 month at 11% of facilities. Facilities in counties with lower capacity had longer wait times, and a one-unit increase in county capacity was associated with 21% lower odds of a facility reporting a wait time >1 month (p < 0.01). There was no association between wait time and the availability of evening or weekend appointments or digital mammography.

Conclusion

Lower mammography capacity is associated with longer wait times for screening mammograms.

Impact

Enhancement of mammography resources in areas with limited capacity may reduce wait times for screening mammogram appointments, thereby increasing access to services and rates of breast cancer screening.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Freedman DA, Petitti DB, Robins JM (2004) On the efficacy of screening for breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol 33:43–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Breen N, Gentleman JF, Schiller JS (2010) Update on mammography trends: comparisons of rates in 2000, 2005, and 2008. Cancer. doi:10.1002/cncr.25679

  3. Miller JW, King JB, Ryerson AB, Eheman CR, White MC (2009) Mammography use from 2000 to 2006: state-level trends with corresponding breast cancer incidence rates. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:352–360. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ryerson AB, Miller J, Eheman CR, White MC (2007) Use of mammograms among women aged >/= 40 years–United States, 2000–2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 56:49–51

    Google Scholar 

  5. Breen N, Cronin KA, Meissner HI, Taplin SH, Tangka FK, Tiro JA et al (2007) Reported drop in mammography : is this cause for concern? Cancer 109:2405–2409. doi:10.1002/cncr.22723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Geller BM, Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Abraham LA, Yankaskas BC, Taplin S et al (2003) Mammography surveillance following breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 81:107–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Keating NL, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, Winer EP, Ayanian JZ (2006) Factors related to underuse of surveillance mammography among breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 24:85–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mammography Quality Standards Act (1992) and Reauthorizations (1998, 2004) 1992

  9. US General Accounting Office (1997) Mammography services: impact of federal legislation on quality, access and health outcomes. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Report no.: GAO/HEHS-98-11

  10. US General Accounting Office (1998) Mammography Quality Standards Act: X-ray quality improved, access unaffected, but impact on health outcomes unknown. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Report no.: GAO/T-HEHS-98-164

  11. US Government Accountability Office (2002) Mammography: capacity generally exists to deliver services. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Report no.: GAO-02-532

  12. US Government Accountability Office (2006) Mammography: current nationwide capacity is adequate, but access problems may exist in certain locations. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Report no.: GAO-06-724

  13. Fischer R, Houn F, Van De Griek A, Tucker SA, Meyers D, Murphy M et al (1998) The impact of the Mammography Quality Standards Act on the availability of mammography facilities. Prev Med 27:697–701

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Korn JE, Casey-Paal A, Lazovich D, Ball J, Slater JS (1997) Impact of the Mammography Quality Standards Act on access in Minnesota. Public Health Rep 112:142–145

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Elkin EB, Ishill NM, Snow JG, Panageas KS, Bach PB, Liberman L et al (2010) Geographic access and the use of screening mammography. Med Care 48:349–356. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181ca3ecb

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Farria DM, Schmidt ME, Monsees BS, Smith RA, Hildebolt C, Yoffie R et al (2005) Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow? Results from a national survey. Cancer 104:491–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hanley JA, Negassa A, Edwardes MD, Forrester JE (2003) Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. Am J Epidemiol 157:364–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Elting LS, Cooksley CD, Bekele BN, Giordano SH, Shih YC, Lovell KK et al (2009) Mammography capacity impact on screening rates and breast cancer stage at diagnosis. Am J Prev Med 37:102–108. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.03.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jackson MC, Davis WW, Waldron W, McNeel TS, Pfeiffer R, Breen N (2009) Impact of geography on mammography use in California. Cancer Causes Control 20:1339–1353. doi:10.1007/s10552-009-9355-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Marchick J, Henson DE (2005) Correlations between access to mammography and breast cancer stage at diagnosis. Cancer 103:1571–1580. doi:10.1002/cncr.20915

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mobley LR, Kuo TM, Driscoll D, Clayton L, Anselin L (2008) Heterogeneity in mammography use across the nation: separating evidence of disparities from the disproportionate effects of geography. Int J Health Geogr 7:32. doi:10.1186/1476-072X-7-32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. D’Orsi C, Tu SP, Nakano C, Carney PA, Abraham LA, Taplin SH et al (2005) Current realities of delivering mammography services in the community: do challenges with staffing and scheduling exist? Radiology 235:391–395. doi:10.1148/radiol.2352040132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sunshine JH, Maynard CD (2008) Update on the diagnostic radiology employment market: findings through 2007–2008. J Am Coll Radiol 5:827–833. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2008.02.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG (2011) Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology 258:98–105. doi:10.1148/radiol.10100655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from Susan G. Komen for the Cure (POP107806, PI: Elkin), the American Cancer Society (MRSG-06-127-01-CPHPS, PI: Elkin) and the National Cancer Institute (K07-CA118189, PI: Elkin).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena B. Elkin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elkin, E.B., Snow, J.G., Leoce, N.M. et al. Mammography capacity and appointment wait times: barriers to breast cancer screening. Cancer Causes Control 23, 45–50 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-011-9853-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-011-9853-1

Keywords

Navigation