How Do Breast Imaging Centers Communicate Results to Women with Limited English Proficiency and Other Barriers to Care?

Overview

Journal J Immigr Minor Health

Publisher Springer

Specialties Public Health
Social Sciences

Date 2013 Jan 18

PMID 23324987

Citations 11

Authors

Erin N Marcus

Tulay Koru-Sengul

Feng Miao

Monica Yepes

Lee Sanders

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Research suggests that women with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and ethnic minority women are at increased risk of being inadequately informed of their mammogram result. The purpose of this study is to explore breast imaging centers' communication practices and assess how these centers accommodate women with low literacy and LEP. A 35-question survey was distributed to a national association of more than 700 breast health centers. Descriptive analysis of the overall sample and Fisher's exact or Chi squared testing to distinguish differences between subgroups were performed. Respondents from 206 centers completed questionnaires. 29% of respondents stated that more than a quarter of their patients were black, 27% of respondents stated that more than a quarter of their patients were Hispanic/Latina, and 13% of respondents stated that more than a quarter of their patients had LEP. Overall, 18% of respondents reported they do not routinely telephone patients with results, 15% do not have multilingual staff or translators available to answer questions, and 69% send result letters in English only. Of note, 69% use patient navigators. Centers reported systemic strengths and barriers to clear communication of mammography results. Our findings are consistent with past investigations identifying a general need to improve the communication of breast imaging results and suggesting that result notification letters alone are inadequate in ensuring that every woman understands her personal results and follow-up plan.

Citing Articles

Breast Density Awareness and Knowledge in a Mammography Screening Cohort of Predominantly Hispanic Women: Does Breast Density Notification Matter?.

Austin J, Agovino M, Rodriguez C, Terry M, Shelton R, Wei Y Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021; 30(10):1913-1920.

PMID: 34348958 PMC: 8492494. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0172.

Engaging Women with Limited Health Literacy in Mammography Decision-Making: Perspectives of Patients and Primary Care Providers.

Gunn C, Maschke A, Paasche-Orlow M, Kressin N, Schonberg M, Battaglia T J Gen Intern Med. 2020; 36(4):938-945.

PMID: 32935318 PMC: 8042081. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-06213-2.

A Qualitative Study of Spanish-Speakers' Experience with Dense Breast Notifications in a Massachusetts Safety-Net Hospital.

Gunn C, Fitzpatrick A, Waugh S, Carrera M, Kressin N, Paasche-Orlow M J Gen Intern Med. 2018; 34(2):198-205.

PMID: 30350031 PMC: 6374252. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-018-4709-y.

The early dissemination of patient navigation interventions: results of a respondent-driven sample survey.

Valverde P, Calhoun E, Esparza A, Wells K, Risendal B Transl Behav Med. 2018; 8(3):456-467.

PMID: 29800405 PMC: 6065542. DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibx080.

Communication Practices of Mammography Facilities and Timely Follow-up of a Screening Mammogram with a BI-RADS 0 Assessment.

Schapira M, Barlow W, Conant E, Sprague B, Tosteson A, Haas J Acad Radiol. 2018; 25(9):1118-1127.

PMID: 29433892 PMC: 6402569. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.12.028.

References

Yabroff K, Breen N, Vernon S, Meissner H, Freedman A, Ballard-Barbash R . What factors are associated with diagnostic follow-up after abnormal mammograms? Findings from a U.S. National Survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004; 13(5):723-32. View

Levin K, Braeuning M, OMalley M, Pisano E, BARRETT E, Earp J . Communicating results of diagnostic mammography: what do patients think?. Acad Radiol. 2000; 7(12):1069-76. DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(00)80058-6. View

Dolan N, Feinglass J, Priyanath A, Haviley C, Sorensen A, Venta L . Measuring satisfaction with mammography results reporting. J Gen Intern Med. 2001; 16(3):157-62. PMC: 1495184. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2001.00509.x. View

Zapka J, Puleo E, Taplin S, Goins K, Yood M, Mouchawar J . Processes of care in cervical and breast cancer screening and follow-up--the importance of communication. Prev Med. 2004; 39(1):81-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.03.010. View

DeVoe J, Fryer G, Phillips R, Green L . Receipt of preventive care among adults: insurance status and usual source of care. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93(5):786-91. PMC: 1447840. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.93.5.786. View

Shea J, Beers B, McDonald V, Quistberg D, Ravenell K, Asch D . Assessing health literacy in African American and Caucasian adults: disparities in rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine (REALM) scores. Fam Med. 2004; 36(8):575-81. View

McCarthy B, Yood M, Janz N, Boohaker E, Ward R, Johnson C . Evaluation of factors potentially associated with inadequate follow-up of mammographic abnormalities. Cancer. 1996; 77(10):2070-6. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960515)77:10<2070::AID-CNCR16>3.0.CO;2-S. View

Press R, Carrasquillo O, Sciacca R, Giardina E . Racial/ethnic disparities in time to follow-up after an abnormal mammogram. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008; 17(6):923-30. PMC: 2942754. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2007.0402. View

Zapka J, Geller B, Bulliard J, Fracheboud J, Sancho-Garnier H, Ballard-Barbash R . Print information to inform decisions about mammography screening participation in 16 countries with population-based programs. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 63(1-2):126-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.09.012. View

10.

Baker D, Hayes R, FORTIER J . Interpreter use and satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of care for Spanish-speaking patients. Med Care. 1998; 36(10):1461-70. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199810000-00004. View

11.

Karliner L, Kaplan C, Juarbe T, Pasick R, Perez-Stable E . Poor patient comprehension of abnormal mammography results. J Gen Intern Med. 2005; 20(5):432-7. PMC: 1490112. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40281.x. View

12.

Phillips C, Rothstein J, Beaver K, Sherman B, Freund K, Battaglia T . Patient navigation to increase mammography screening among inner city women. J Gen Intern Med. 2010; 26(2):123-9. PMC: 3019333. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-010-1527-2. View

13.

Mojica C, Bastani R, Ponce N, Boscardin W . Latinas with abnormal breast findings: patient predictors of timely diagnostic resolution. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007; 16(10):1468-77. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2006.0324. View

14.

Lobb R, Allen J, Emmons K, Ayanian J . Timely care after an abnormal mammogram among low-income women in a public breast cancer screening program. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170(6):521-8. PMC: 2881669. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.22. View

15.

Carney P, Kettler M, Cook A, Geller B, Karliner L, Miglioretti D . An assessment of the likelihood, frequency, and content of verbal communication between radiologists and women receiving screening and diagnostic mammography. Acad Radiol. 2009; 16(9):1056-63. PMC: 2746626. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.02.023. View

16.

Mayberry R, Mili F, Ofili E . Racial and ethnic differences in access to medical care. Med Care Res Rev. 2000; 57 Suppl 1:108-45. DOI: 10.1177/1077558700057001S06. View

17.

Wells K, Battaglia T, Dudley D, Garcia R, Greene A, Calhoun E . Patient navigation: state of the art or is it science?. Cancer. 2008; 113(8):1999-2010. PMC: 2679696. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23815. View

18.

Barton M, Morley D, Moore S, Allen J, Kleinman K, Emmons K . Decreasing women's anxieties after abnormal mammograms: a controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96(7):529-38. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh083. View

19.

Kaplan C, Crane L, Stewart S, Juarez-Reyes M . Factors affecting follow-up among low-income women with breast abnormalities. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2004; 13(2):195-206. DOI: 10.1089/154099904322966182. View

20.

Moy B, Park E, Feibelmann S, Chiang S, Weissman J . Barriers to repeat mammography: cultural perspectives of African-American, Asian, and Hispanic women. Psychooncology. 2005; 15(7):623-34. DOI: 10.1002/pon.994. View