Follow-up among women with an abnormal mammogram in an HMO: is it complete, timely, and efficient?

OBJECTIVE To describe the extent to which women with seriously abnormal mammograms complete indicated follow-up, the timeliness of this follow-up, and variations in the pattern of use of diagnostic procedures. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective chart review. PATIENTS AND METHODS Ninety-two women enrolled in a single urban health maintenance organization (HMO) with an abnormal index mammogram (mass or suspicious calcifications) during 1995 or 1996 were identified by review of all HMO mammography reports. Data were abstracted from medical records concerning all clinical services received over the 11 months after the date of the abnormal mammogram. Procedure costs were estimated based on 1997 Medicare relative-value units. Logistic regression and a multivariate accelerated failure-time model were used to evaluate the association between predictor variables and the occurrence and timing of completion of follow-up. RESULTS Follow-up was not completed by 31 (34%) of the 92 study women and was delayed beyond 60 days for another 32 (35%). In adjusted analysis, factors associated with completion within 60 days included age less than 50 years and inclusion of a specific follow-up recommendation in the mammogram report. Completion by the end of the study (a minimum of 11 months after the index mammogram) was associated only with the presence of a specific follow-up recommendation. The follow-up process (i.e., the diagnostic procedures used) was highly variable but almost always included surgical evaluation. The average cost among those completing follow-up was about $1900 (in 1997 dollars). CONCLUSIONS Incomplete follow-up after a potentially seriously abnormal mammogram constitutes an important barrier to breast cancer control efforts in the study HMO, but its explanation remains incompletely understood. The follow-up process itself is highly variable, and improvement in its efficiency and timely completion will require a better understanding of its determinants.

[1]  P. Gimotty,et al.  Promoting Screening Mammography in Inner-City Settings: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Computerized Reminders as a Component of a Program to Facilitate Mammography , 1994, Medical care.

[2]  Peter Dews,et al.  The effect of patient and physician reminders on use of screening mammography in a health maintenance organization: Results of a randomized controlled trial , 1996, Cancer.

[3]  P. Gimotty,et al.  Promoting screening mammography in inner-city settings. The sustained effectiveness of computerized reminders in a randomized controlled trial. , 1997, Medical care.

[4]  N. Janz,et al.  Evaluation of factors potentially associated with inadequate follow‐up of mammographic abnormalities , 1996, Cancer.

[5]  R. Hiatt,et al.  The effect of patient and provider reminders on mammography and Papanicolaou smear screening in a large health maintenance organization. , 1997, Archives of internal medicine.

[6]  E. Eng,et al.  The save our sisters project. A social network strategy for reaching rural black women , 1993, Cancer.

[7]  U. Menon,et al.  Tailoring interventions for health behavior change in breast cancer screening. , 1997, Cancer practice.

[8]  J. Elmore,et al.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  Alexander J. Rothman,et al.  The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. , 1995, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[10]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of Extending Screening Mammography Guidelines To Include Women 40 to 49 Years of Age , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[11]  J. Meyer,et al.  Large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. , 1999, JAMA.

[12]  V. Champion.  Strategies to Increase Mammography Utilization , 1994, Medical care.

[13]  J. Mandelblatt,et al.  Barriers to follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms among low-income minority women. Cancer Control Center of Harlem. , 1996, Ethnicity & health.

[14]  F. Alexander,et al.  Maximise compliance as well as radiological sensitivity , 1995, BMJ.

[15]  M. McKee,et al.  Barriers to follow-up of abnormal Papanicolaou smears in an urban community health center. , 1999, Archives of family medicine.

[16]  F. Pommerenke,et al.  Improving and maintaining preventive services. Part 1: Applying the patient path model. , 1992, The Journal of family practice.

[17]  B. Trock,et al.  Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. , 1991, Annals of internal medicine.

[18]  S. Rubin,et al.  Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. , 1995, JAMA.