Dataset Information

Spatial equity in facilities providing low- or no-fee screening mammography in Chicago neighborhoods.

ABSTRACT: Recent research suggests living in an economically disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with decreased likelihood of undergoing mammography and increased risk of late-stage breast cancer diagnosis. Long distances and travel times to facilities offering low- or no-fee mammography may be important barriers to adherence to mammography screening recommendations for women living in economically disadvantaged urban neighborhoods, in which African-Americans are disproportionately represented. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the spatial distribution of facilities providing low- or no-fee screening mammography in Chicago, Illinois, is equitable on the basis of neighborhood socioeconomic and racial characteristics. We found that distance and travel times via automobile and public transportation to facilities generally decrease as neighborhood poverty increases. However, we also found that the strength of the association between neighborhood poverty level and two of the spatial accessibility measures-distance and public transportation travel time-is less strong in African-American neighborhoods. Among neighborhoods with the greatest need for facilities (i.e., neighborhoods with the highest proportions of residents in poverty), African-American neighborhoods have longer travel distances and public transportation travel times than neighborhoods with proportionately fewer African-American residents. Thus, it appears that the spatial accessibility of low- and no-fee mammography services is inequitable in Chicago. In view of persistent social disparities in health such as breast cancer outcomes, these findings suggest it is important for researchers to examine the spatial distribution of health resources by both the socioeconomic and racial characteristics of urban neighborhoods.

SUBMITTER: Zenk SN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2527168 | biostudies-other | 2006 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Whether timeliness of follow-up after abnormal mammography differs at facilities serving vulnerable populations, such as women with limited education or income, in rural areas, and racial/ethnic minorities is unknown.We examined receipt of diagnostic evaluation after abnormal mammography using 1998-2006 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium-linked Medicare claims. We compared whether time to recommended breast imaging or biopsy depended on whether women attended facilities serving vulnerable populations. We characterized a facility by the proportion of mammograms performed on women with limited education or income, in rural areas, or racial/ethnic minorities.We analyzed 30,874 abnormal screening examinations recommended for follow-up imaging across 142 facilities and 10,049 abnormal diagnostic examinations recommended for biopsy across 114 facilities. Women at facilities serving populations with less education or more racial/ethnic minorities had lower rates of follow-up imaging (4%-5% difference, P<0.05), and women at facilities serving more rural and low-income populations had lower rates of biopsy (4%-5% difference, P<0.05). Women undergoing biopsy at facilities serving vulnerable populations had longer times until biopsy than those at facilities serving nonvulnerable populations (21.6 vs. 15.6 d; 95% confidence interval for mean difference 4.1-7.7). The proportion of women receiving recommended imaging within 11 months and biopsy within 3 months varied across facilities (interquartile range, 85.5%-96.5% for imaging and 79.4%-87.3% for biopsy).Among Medicare recipients, follow-up rates were slightly lower at facilities serving vulnerable populations, and among those women who returned for diagnostic evaluation, time to follow-up was slightly longer at facilities that served vulnerable population. Interventions should target variability in follow-up rates across facilities, and evaluate effectiveness particularly at facilities serving vulnerable populations.

Project description:Introduction: Since 2008 the German Mammography Screening Programme has been available throughout Germany to all women aged between 50 and 69. The programme strictly follows the European Guidelines. There are controversial discussions in the media as well as in the specialised press. Materials and Methods: Overview of the available data with regard to an evaluation of randomised studies and with regard to quality-assured screening programmes in accordance with EU Guidelines (including data from 18 screening countries). Results: Positive effects of screening: reduction in mortality, less invasive treatment. Negative effects: False-positive diagnoses and biopsy recommendations, so-called overdiagnoses, radiation dose. Limits of screening: Interval carcinomas, incomplete reduction in mortality. A mathematical synopsis of the latest publications from the European screening programmes with the diagnosis rates in Germany determined from >?4.6 million screening examinations produces the following: a total of 10?000 mammograms are created for 1000 women (P) taking part in the Mammography Screening Programme (each of whom undergoes 10 mammograms in 20 years). Overall, the risk of triggering breast cancer through a mammogram is very clearly below the annual natural risk of suffering from breast cancer. In the German screening, of these 1000 women, an average of 288 women are called back once in 20 years as a result of changes that are ultimately benign (<?3?% per cycle). Of these, 74 of the 288 women undergo a biopsy due to a benign change (false-positive biopsy recommendations, usually punch or vacuum biopsies). According to EUROSCREEN, 71 carcinomas develop among participants (56 are discovered in the screening, 15 in the interval), and 67 carcinomas among non-participants (N-P) (in some cases, several years later) during this period. The 4 additional diagnoses among the Ps are referred to as overdiagnoses, as they do not contribute to a reduction in mortality (these participants die beforehand from other causes of death). With regard to the carcinomas that concern the screening periods, 11 women out of 1000 die among the Ps; there are 19 deaths among the N-Ps (within the observation period plus follow-up period). Discussion: The false-positive rate is unavoidable, but is far lower with mammography screening than with other methods. Overdiagnoses are to be expected with any early detection. All calculations require assumptions and are therefore highly discrepant. They have very low evidence levels. The radiation dose should not be an argument against screening when applied correctly due to the very low risk and significant benefits. Interval carcinomas indicate the limits of a mammography screening programme. False-negatives only represent a subset of the interval carcinomas and are not to be equated with them. There is a very high evidence level for a significant reduction in mortality through mammography screening. For the first time, an independent expert commission has confirmed the results of the randomised studies and the statement of the WHO from 2002 and their further validity. Participants can expect a reduction in mortality of 30?%. Data from the current European screening programmes confirm a mortality reduction of 43?%, corresponding to 8/19 saved lives among 71 women with breast cancer or 1000 asymptomatic Ps. Many additional Ps benefit from less invasive treatment due to the early detection. Conclusions: As a result of the risk/benefit ratio, mammography screening should absolutely be recommended to asymptomatic women aged between 50-69. High importance is given to the provision of education for women by the treating gynaecologists as regards the opportunities for quality-assured early detection available to them in the healthcare system.

Project description:BackgroundLatino adults, especially immigrants without citizenship (i.e., noncitizens), experience considerable barriers to health care, including medications. Inequitable access to medications, especially statins, may exacerbate disparities in cardiovascular disease. Despite this, little is known about medication nonadherence in Latino neighborhoods, especially those with large noncitizen populations.ObjectivesTo estimate nonadherence to statins in Latino neighborhoods and evaluate differences on the basis of their noncitizen population.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study among 48,161 adults who lived in predominately Latino neighborhoods in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago and who initiated statin therapy from January 2012 to December 2015 using IQVIA LifeLink. Statin nonadherence was defined as a proportion of days covered amounting to less than 80% over 12 months. We focused on differences between neighborhoods with high noncitizen concentrations (areas where noncitizens are at least 35% of the adult population) and other Latino neighborhoods. We examined associations using logistic regressions adjusted for individual (e.g., payment method) and neighborhood characteristics (e.g., poverty).ResultsIndividuals living in neighborhoods with high noncitizen concentrations were more nonadherent to statins than those in Latino neighborhoods with fewer noncitizens (75.0% vs. 70.0%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.18, [95% CI 1.06-1.33]). These disparities were worse in New York City (77.7% vs. 69.1%, aOR 1.37, [95% CI 1.23-1.53]) and Chicago (76.1% vs. 68.8%, aOR 1.38, [95% CI 1.14-1.67]) than in Los Angeles (73.8% vs. 71.3%, aOR 1.10, [95% CI 1.01-1.20]).ConclusionNeighborhoods with large noncitizen populations have much higher rates of statin nonadherence than Latino neighborhoods with fewer noncitizens. These disparities were least pronounced in Los Angeles, where the county provides health care to all uninsured residents, including noncitizens without documentation to reside in the United States. Efforts to improve medication access in Latino neighborhoods should be multifocal and start by implementing state and local health care options for low-income residents, regardless of citizenship status.

Project description:BackgroundUrban residents from the developing world have increasingly adopted a sedentary lifestyle and spend less time on physical activities (PA). Previous studies on the association between PA facilities and individuals' PA levels are based on the assumption that individuals have opportunities to use PA facilities within neighborhoods all day long, ignoring the fact that their willingness and opportunities to use nearby facilities depend on how much discretionary time (any time when people have a choice what to do) they have. Further, scant attention has been paid to the influence of PA facilities within both residential and workplace neighborhoods in the dense urban context. To address the above research gaps, this study investigated the links between the spatial access to PA facilities within home/workplace neighborhoods and time spent on PA among working adults, focusing on whether results were different when different measures of accessibility were used and whether participants' discretionary time over a week affected their time spent on PA.MethodThis study used data from a questionnaire survey (n = 1002) in Guangzhou between June and July 2017 and point of interest (POI) data from online mapping resources. Outcome variables included the amount of time spent on physical activity/moderate and vigorous intensity physical activity (PA/MVPA) over the past week. Home/workplace neighborhoods were measured as different distance buffers (500 m circular buffers, 1000 m circular buffers, and 1080 m network buffers) around each respondent's home/workplace. Spatial access to PA facilities was measured using two indicators: the counts of PA facilities and proximity to PA facilities within home/workplace neighborhoods. The amount of discretionary time was calculated based on activity log data of working day/weekend day from the Guangzhou questionnaire survey, and regression models were used to examine relationships between the spatial access of PA facilities, the time spent on PA/MVPA, and the amount of discretionary time, adjusted for covariates. Associations were stratified by gender, age, education, and income.ResultsUsing different measures of accessibility (the counts of and proximity to PA facilities) generated different results. Specifically, participants spent more time on PA/MVPA when they lived in neighborhoods with more PA facilities and spent more time on MVPA when worked in closer proximity to PA facilities. A larger amount of discretionary time was associated with more time spent on PA/MVPA, but it did not strengthen the relationship between access to PA facilities and PA/MVPA time. In addition, relationships between access to PA facilities and PA levels varied by gender, age, education, and income.ConclusionThis study contributes to the knowledge of PA-promoting environments by considering both the home and workplace contexts and by taking into account the temporal attributes of contextual influences. Policymakers and urban planners are advised to take into account the workplace context and the temporal variability of neighborhood influences when allocating public PA facilities and public spaces.

Project description:BackgroundIn Germany, all women aged 50-69 have been invited to biennial mammography screening since 2009. We aimed to assess longitudinal adherence over ten years in women aged 50 in 2009 and characterize the different adherence groups.MethodsUsing the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database (GePaRD, ~ 20% of the German population), we included women aged 50 in 2009 (baseline) with continuous health insurance coverage and without breast cancer or in-situ-carcinoma. We followed them until age 59 and categorized them according to mammography screening participation into the following groups: never, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 times. We characterized these groups, inter alia, regarding the use of other preventive measures, non-screening mammography (i.e., mammography outside the organized screening program) and menopausal hormone therapy.ResultsOverall, 82,666 women were included. Of these, 27.6% never participated in the screening program, 15.1% participated 1-2 times, 31.7% participated 3-4 times and 25.6% participated regularly (5-6 times). Among regular participants, 91% utilized other preventive measures (e.g., cervical cancer screening, general health checkup) before baseline as compared to 66% among non-participants. Menopausal hormone therapy was least common among non-participants (11% vs. 18% among regular participants). Among non-participants, the proportions using ≥ 1, ≥ 2, and ≥ 3 non-screening mammographies between age 50-59 were 25%, 18%, and 15%, respectively.ConclusionsUsing a large cohort based on claims data, this study provides novel insights into longitudinal adherence to the mammography screening program and the use of mammography outside of the program in Germany. Between age 50-59, 57% of eligible women participated at least three times in the German mammography screening program and 28% (~ 3 in 10 women) never participated. Among non-participants, 15% had at least three non-screening mammographies during this period, indicating potential gray screening. Participants more often utilized other preventive measures as compared to non-participants.

Dataset Information

Spatial equity in facilities providing low- or no-fee screening mammography in Chicago neighborhoods.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets