Skip Navigation Links
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 CDC Home Search Health Topics A-Z

Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy

View Current Issue
Issue Archive
Archivo de números en español








Emerging Infectious Diseases Journal
MMWR


 Home 

Volume 4: No. 4, October 2007

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
A Combined Approach to Women’s Health Is Associated With a Greater Likelihood of Repeat Mammography in a Population of Financially Disadvantaged Women


TABLE OF CONTENTS


Translation available Este resumen en español
  Ce résumé est en français
  本摘要中文版
  本摘要中文版
Print this article Print this article
E-mail this article E-mail this article:



Send feedback to editors Send feedback to editors
Download this article as a PDF Download this article as a PDF (418K)

You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view PDF files.


Navigate This Article
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgments
Author Information
References
Tables


Karen Y. Gregory-Mercado, PhD, MPH, Julie Will, PhD, MPH, Susan True, MEd, Janet Royalty, MS, E. Thomas Starcher II, Olga Khavjou, MA, William Helsel, MS, William Kammerer, William Howe

Suggested citation for this article: Gregory-Mercado KY, Will J, True S, Royalty J, Starcher TE II, Khavjou O, et al. A combined approach to women’s health is associated with a greater likelihood of repeat mammography in a population of financially disadvantaged women. Prev Chronic Dis 2007;4(4). http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2007/
oct/06_0126.htm
. Accessed [date].

PEER REVIEWED

Abstract

Introduction
Integrating one or more public health programs may improve the ability of programs to achieve common goals. Expanding knowledge on how program integration occurs, how it benefits each individual program, and how it contributes to the achievement of common goals is an important area of inquiry in public health.

Methods
The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and the Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation (WISEWOMAN) program combined data from 10 of their overlapping state or tribal programs to calculate prevalence estimates of repeat mammography at 18 months. The data were stratified by whether women attended the combined program or only the NBCCEDP. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors that were thought to independently contribute to a greater likelihood of a woman receiving a repeat mammogram.

Results
Women who participated in both programs were 1.5 to 5.1 times as likely to be rescreened, depending on program location, as women who participated only in the NBCCEDP. WISEWOMAN participants who received a follow-up WISEWOMAN screening for chronic disease risk factors within a year of their initial WISEWOMAN screening were 5 times more likely to return for a follow-up mammogram through the NBCCEDP than were WISEWOMAN participants who did not.

Discussion
Participation in both the NBCCEDP and the WISEWOMAN program is associated with a greater likelihood of a woman returning for a follow-up mammogram within 18 months of her initial examination. Collecting more in-depth information on motivational factors and on the association between receipt of multiple services and a woman’s engagement in a health program should be the subject of future research.

Back to top

Introduction

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides low-income, uninsured, and underserved women access to timely, high-quality screening and diagnostic services to detect breast and cervical cancer at the earliest stages through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) (1). In 1993, Congress authorized CDC to develop a combined approach to women’s health by offering heart disease and stroke prevention services to women enrolled in the NBCCEDP.

The heart disease and stroke prevention program, later named the Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation (WISEWOMAN) program, was first funded in 1995 (2). Low-income women aged 40 to 64 years enrolled in the NBCCEDP are qualified for WISEWOMAN.

Many health interventions include testing for cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure, but WISEWOMAN also provides lifestyle intervention and referral services. Through WISEWOMAN, qualified women receive chronic disease risk factor screening and health education interventions that help them lower their risk for heart disease. By helping women adopt healthy eating patterns and encouraging them to be more physically active, WISEWOMAN aims to help women know their risk for heart disease and develop a heart-healthy lifestyle.

The coordination of these two programs is one example of an integrated and comprehensive approach to improving the public’s health. The successful implementation of such an approach, however, requires comprehensive changes to health care systems (3). Understanding how the coordination of multiple chronic disease programs might enhance the effectiveness of each is key to advancing prevention efforts. As part of an overall assessment on the benefits of combined approaches to preventive health, WISEWOMAN and the NBCCEDP are conducting analyses to explore these relationships. This report describes the results of one part of those analyses: a comparison of breast cancer rescreening rates among NBCCEDP participants who also participated in the WISEWOMAN program with rescreening rates among NBCCEDP participants who did not.

Back to top

Methods

NBCCEDP and WISEWOMAN

The NBCCEDP is implemented through cooperative agreements with grantee programs in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 4 territories, and 13 American Indian and Alaska Native jurisdictions. WISEWOMAN is currently implemented in 13 state health departments and 2 tribal organizations. Participation in WISEWOMAN is limited to women enrolled in the NBCCEDP, although not all eligible NBCCEDP participants choose to participate in WISEWOMAN, and not all NBCCEDP sites offer the WISEWOMAN program.

Twice a year, WISEWOMAN and NBCCEDP grantees send a report to CDC on the clinical services provided, including data on participant demographics, clinical procedures and outcomes, and physiologic measures. This report is based on data from 10 state or tribal grantees that implemented both WISEWOMAN and NBCCEDP and had enough participants during the study period to produce stable estimates of follow-up mammography screening rates

From 2000 to 2004, 17% of NBCCEDP participants at the 10 grantee locations (range, 8%–39%) were also enrolled in WISEWOMAN. The study cohort consisted of women enrolled in the NBCCEDP from January 1, 2000 (the date of the first WISEWOMAN screening) through June 30, 2003. Women who had a normal result on an initial mammography screening during this period were followed for 18 months to determine whether they received a routine rescreening mammogram through the NBCCEDP. A woman was considered to be a participant in both programs if she received a WISEWOMAN disease risk factor screening within 18 months of her initial NBCCEDP mammography screening.

Rescreening rates for each of the 10 grantee locations were weighted by each location’s sample size to produce an overall estimate of NBCCEDP rescreening rates by WISEWOMAN participation. A fully adjusted model was used to control for demographic characteristics that may be associated with rescreening rates (4,5), such as age, race/ethnicity, and program location. An additional analysis of NBCCEDP rescreening rates among women who participated in both WISEWOMAN and the NBCCEDP also controlled for characteristics including education, baseline health status, participation in WISEWOMAN lifestyle interventions, and whether they had been rescreened for chronic disease risk factors through the WISEWOMAN program within a year of their initial WISEWOMAN chronic disease risk factors screening.

The first analytic cohort consisted of 68,522 individuals who received a baseline mammogram during the enrollment period.

Back to top

Results

Across all 10 programs, participation in both WISEWOMAN and the NBCCEDP was associated with a higher percentage of follow-up mammograms, with adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.5 to 5.1 (Table 1). Overall, women who participated in both the NBCCEDP and the WISEWOMAN program were 2.8 times more likely to have received a follow-up mammogram than were women who participated in the NBCCEDP alone (Table 2). The demographic characteristics associated with an adjusted greater likelihood of having had a repeat mammogram were being aged 50 or older and being white (Table 2).

Among the 13,742 women who participated in both programs, certain characteristics increased the likelihood that women received a follow-up mammography screening. Rescreening rates were significantly higher among those older than 49 years. American Indian or Alaska Native women and women of unknown races had higher rates than did whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Nonsmokers were more likely to be rescreened than were smokers. Those who received follow-up WISEWOMAN screening services within a year of their initial WISEWOMAN screening were more likely than those who did not to receive a mammography rescreening  (Table 3). Adjusted results indicate that WISEWOMAN participants who received a follow-up WISEWOMAN screening within a year of their initial WISEWOMAN screening were 5 times more likely to return for a follow-up NBCCEDP mammogram than were WISEWOMAN participants who did not.

Back to top

Discussion

Excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer among U.S. women, and it accounts for a third of newly diagnosed cancer cases among women each year (6). Although appropriate preventive services, including mammography screening, have been shown to reduce the number of cancer deaths (7), mammography screening is underused (7,8). Estimates of the percentage of women who have undergone mammography screening range from 32% to 91%, while estimates of the percentage that have undergone rescreening range from 28% to 92% (4,9). However, estimated screening rates are substantially lower among financially disadvantaged populations, such as those served by the NBCCEDP and WISEWOMAN (4,5). In an NBCCEDP study of rescreening rates at selected sites (which reflected rescreenings that program participants reported receiving outside the NBCCEDP as well as program-delivered rescreenings), average rates were as high as 72.4% after 18 months and 81.5% after 30 months; however, rescreening rates were lower in the most disadvantaged populations — women who were older, were of racial/ethnic minorities, and had lower levels of education (9).

Although the rescreening rates among women in this cohort who were older, white, American Indian or Alaska Native, or WISEWOMAN participants are encouraging, the overall results show that practices and strategies to increase rescreening rates among underserved women need to be developed. The chances that a patient will follow cancer screening recommendations are influenced both by personal factors and by the patient’s health care environment. Thus, understanding the interplay of these factors is critical for the development of effective cancer prevention programs (3).

Joint participation in the NBCCEDP and the WISEWOMAN programs may be associated with higher cancer rescreening rates for at least three reasons. First, women in the NBCCEDP who choose to participate also in WISEWOMAN are likely to be more committed to their overall health care than those who choose not to participate (3). Second, women participating in both WISEWOMAN and the NBCCEDP may feel that they are receiving better, more comprehensive health care service and thus be more likely to return for follow-up screening as recommended (3,10). Finally, in addition to receiving annual reminders from the NBCCEDP about the importance of regular screenings for breast and cervical cancer, women who also participate in WISEWOMAN receive comprehensive cardiovascular disease screening and a series of culturally sensitive lifestyle interventions that provide additional contact with health care providers (10). In effect, WISEWOMAN reminder practices and multicomponent interventions may serve to reinforce the rescreening reminders that NBCCEDP participants receive, resulting in at least a doubling of the number of times that participants are prompted to be rescreened, a factor that might be critical for financially disadvantaged populations.

Findings from other studies also indicate that coordinated health care efforts have a synergistic effect. For example, in a meta-analysis, researchers found that interventions designed to increase older women’s access to health care were more effective when used in conjunction with promotional strategies directed at individuals than access-enhancing strategies alone (11).

The findings in this report are subject to several limitations. The sample sizes for the variables listed in the tables differ because of missing data; however, missing data should have had little effect on the estimates presented here, given that the demographic profile of participants with missing data was not significantly different from that of participants with complete data. Mammography screening guidelines recommend annual or biennial screening for women aged 40 or older, whereas the rescreening rates reported here are based on a follow-up period of 18 months. Another limitation is that this study did not capture rescreening that NBCCEDP participants may have undergone outside of the NBCCEDP, nor did it adjust for differences in participants’ mammography screening history or for the timeliness of historical screenings; these are all characteristics that might indicate other sources of funding for mammograms, as well as secular trends. Finally, women who are highly health-conscious may be more likely to participate in both WISEWOMAN and NBCCEDP and may be more likely to return for NBCCEDP rescreening.

Overcoming this self-selection bias in future NBCCEDP/WISEWOMAN studies will be difficult because, if the programs are fully integrated, women will have no choice but to attend both, effectively ensuring that motivation is not the key factor in attending. Thus, researchers will be unable to compare rescreening rates of women who attend both programs with the rates of those who attend only one program. Measuring health motivation and ensuring that all study participants are equally motivated might be another way to address this issue of self-selection bias. However, neither program currently has a measure of health motivation. Thus, the data provided in this study are the strongest available for these two programs.  

The results of this analysis suggest that participation in both the NBCCEDP and WISEWOMAN may result in better adherence to mammography rescreening recommendations. A number of likely explanations for these results have been proposed: women who receive multiple services may be more invested in the program or, alternatively, women who are more health-conscious may be likely to select a more intensive combined program. Consequently, further research is needed to better understand the reasons behind these findings.

Back to top

Acknowledgments

This report is based on data submitted to the NBCCEDP and WISEWOMAN by grantee programs in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Dakota, the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, the Southcentral Foundation, and Vermont.

Back to top

Author Information

Corresponding Author: Karen Y. Gregory-Mercado, PhD, MPH, Health Educator/Nutritionist, CIGNA/Care Allies, Phoenix Health Facilitation Center, 1101 N Black Canyon Hwy, Phoenix, AZ 85029. Telephone: 602-328-8948. E-mail: karen.gregory-mercado@cigna.com.

Dr. Gregory-Mercado was affiliated with the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, during the writing of this article.

Author Affiliations: Julie Will, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP); Susan True, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, NCCDPHP; Janet Royalty, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, NCCDPHP, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. E. Thomas Starcher II, McKing Consulting Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia; Olga Khavjou, Research Triangle Institute International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; William Helsel, William Kammerer, William Howe, Information Management Services, Inc, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Back to top

References

  1. Henson RM, Wyatt SW, Lee NC. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: a comprehensive public health response to two major health issues for women. J Public Health Manag Pract 1996;2(2):36-47.
  2. Cardiovascular disease prevention for women attending breast and cervical cancer screening programs: the WISEWOMAN projects. The WISEWOMAN Workgroup. Prev Med 1999;28(5):496-502.
  3. Glasgow RE, Orleans CT, Wagner EH. Does the chronic care model serve also as a template for improving prevention? Milbank Q 2001;79(4):579-612, iv-v.
  4. Clark MA, Rakowski W, Bonacore LB. Repeat mammography: prevalence estimates and considerations for assessment. Ann Behav Med 2003;26(3):201-11.
  5. Coughlin SS, Uhler RJ, Hall HI, Briss PA. Nonadherence to breast and cervical cancer screening: what are the linkages to chronic disease risk? Prev Chronic Dis 2004;1(1). www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/jan/03_0015.htm. Accessed August 26, 2006.
  6. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, Samuels A, Tiwari RC, Ghafoor A, et al. Cancer statistics, 2005. [Published erratum in: CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55(4):259]. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55(1):10-30.
  7. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 2004;54(1):41-52.
  8. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005. www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/breastcancer/brcanrr.htm*. Accessed December 13, 2005.
  9. Bobo JK, Shapiro JA, Schulman J, Wolters CL. On-schedule mammography rescreening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13(4):620-30.
  10. Grady KE, Lemkau JP, McVay JM, Reisine ST. The importance of physician encouragement in breast cancer screening of older women. Prev Med 1992;21(6):766-80.
  11. Legler J, Meissner HI, Coyne C, Breen N, Chollette V, Rimer BK. The effectiveness of interventions to promote mammography among women with historically lower rates of screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11(1):59-71. 

Back to top

 


Tables

Return to your place in the textTable 1. NBCCEDP Participants Who Underwent Follow-up Mammography Screening Within 18 Months of Their Initial Mammograms, by Program Location and Participation in the WISEWOMAN Program, and the Increased Likelihood of Rescreening Associated with WISEWOMAN Participation, 2000–2004
Location Program No. Participants Mammography
Rescreened, % Unadjusted
OR (95% CI)
Adjusteda OR (95% CI)
A NBCCEDP only 4,013 42 Ref Ref
NBCCEDP + WW 898 64 2.53 (2.18-2.94) 2.44 (2.09-2.86)
B NBCCEDP alone 1,954 53 Ref Ref
NBCCEDP + WW 438 80 3.55 (2.77-4.55) 3.36 (2.61-4.34)
C NBCCEDP alone 14,119 27 Ref Ref
NBCCEDP + WW 4,101 52 3.01 (2.81-3.24) 2.90 (2.69-3.12)
D NBCCEDP alone 16,093 31 Ref Ref
NBCCEDP + WW 1,411 54 2.57 (2.31-2.87) 2.61 (2.30-2.96)
E NBCCEDP alone 3,231 29 Ref Ref
NBCCEDP + WW 3,390 67 5.11 (4.60-5.68) 5.09 (4.58-5.66)
F NBCCEDP alone 9,857 37 Ref Ref
NBCCEDP + WW 2,058 47 1.52 (1.38-1.67) 1.49 (1.35-1.64)
G NBCCEDP alone 605 24 Ref Ref
NBCCEDP + WW 319 55 3.84 (2.87-5.12) 3.84 (2.84-5.18)
H NBCCEDP alone 788 41 Ref Ref
NBCCEDP + WW 327 55 1.78 (1.37-2.30) 1.68 (1.29-2.21)
I NBCCEDP alone 3,066 51 Ref Ref
NBCCEDP + WW 461 67 2.01 (1.63-2.47) 1.93 (1.57-2.38)
J NBCCEDP alone 1,054 34 Ref Ref
NBCCEDP + WW 339 62 3.06 (2.38-3.94) 3.08 (2.39-3.97)

NBCCEDP indicates National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program; WW, WISEWOMAN program; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; Ref, referent group.
a Adjusted for age and race/ethnicity.

Return to your place in the textTable 2. NBCCEDP Participants Who Underwent Follow-up Mammography Screening Within 18 Months of Their Initial Mammograms and Their Relative Likelihood of Doing So, by WISEWOMAN Participation, Age, and Race/Ethnicity, 2000–2004
Characteristic No. Participantsa Mammography
Rescreened, % Unadjusted
OR (95% CI)
Adjustedb
OR (95% CI)
Program
NBCCEDP alone 54,780 34  Ref Ref
NBCCEDP + WW 13,742 58 2.71 (2.61-2.82) 2.75 (2.60-2.82)
Age, y
40-49 30,614 28 Ref Ref
50-59 30,000 46 2.13 (2.05-2.20) 2.14 (2.06-2.22)
≥60 7,767 52 2.71 (2.57-2.85) 2.78 (2.64-2.93)
Race/ethnicity
White 39,795 41 Ref Ref
Black 10,504 33 0.70 (0.67-0.73) 0.76 (0.72-0.80)
Hispanic 9,515 34 0.75 (0.72-0.79) 0.88 (0.83-0.92)
Asianc 1,866 28 0.57 (0.51-0.63) 0.65 (0.58-0.72)
American Indian or Alaska Native 5,133 46 1.25 (1.18-1.33) 0.63 (0.56-0.72)
Unknown 1,709 35 0.79 (0.71-0.87) 0.71 (0.63-0.79)

NBCCEDP indicates National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program; WW, WISEWOMAN program; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; Ref, referent group.
a Participant totals differ because of missing data.
b Adjusted for participation at individual locations and in the WISEWOMAN program, and for age and race/ethnicity.
c Included women who identified themselves as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. 

Return to your place in the textTable 3. Percentage of Participants in Both the NBCCEDP and the WISEWOMAN Program Who Underwent Follow-up Mammography Screening Within 18 Months of Their Initial Mammograms and Their Relative Likelihood of Doing So, by Participant Characteristics, 2000–2004
Characteristic No. Participantsa Mammography
Rescreened, % Unadjusted
OR (95% CI)
Adjustedb
OR (95% CI)
Sociodemographics
Age, y
40-49 5,781 49 Ref Ref
50-59 6,345 64 1.81 (1.68-1.94) 1.88 (1.72-2.06)
≥60 1,587 69 2.33 (2.07-2.63) 2.13 (1.84-2.46)
Education
Less than high school 1,342 59 0.86 (0.76-0.97) 0.90 (0.77-1.05)
Some high school 1,304 59 0.86 (0.76-0.97) 0.86 (0.75-0.98)
High school graduate 5,422 63 Ref Ref
Some college or more 4,058 56 0.77 (0.71-0.84) 0.76 (0.69-0.83)
Race/ethnicity
White 9,096 59 Ref  Ref
Black 1,330 53 0.77 (0.69-0.87) 0.82 (0.71-0.94)
Hispanic 1,881 58 0.94 (0.85-1.04) 0.91 (0.79-1.04)
Asianc 402 46 0.60 (0.49-0.73) 0.68 (0.52-0.89)
AI or AN 781 61 1.10 (0.94-1.27) 1.27 (1.07-1.52)
Unknown 252 67 1.42 (1.09-1.85) 1.43 (1.05-1.95)
Baseline health status
Smoking
No 10,268 61 Ref Ref
Yes 3,139 51 0.67 (0.61-0.72) 0.67 (0.61-0.74)
Diabetes
No 12,429 58 Ref Ref
Yes 1,310 58 1.00 (0.89-1.12) 0.91 (0.79-1.05)
Hypertension
No 8,266 57 Ref Ref
Yes 4,768 60 1.16 (1.08-1.25) 1.00 (0.91-1.10)
High cholesterol
No 9,179 57 Ref Ref
Yes 3,814 60 1.13 (1.05-1.22) 0.95 (0.86-1.04)
Body mass index
<25.0 3,490 55 Ref Ref
25.0-29.9 3,829 60 1.20 (1.10-1.32) 1.08 (0.97-1.20)
≥30.0 5,205 58 1.12 (1.03-1.22) 1.00 (0.90-1.11)
WISEWOMAN characteristics
Lifestyle intervention attendance
Zero sessions 4,098 57 Ref Ref
One or more sessions 9,644 58 1.06 (0.98-1.14) 1.09 (1.00-1.20)
WISEWOMAN rescreening at 10-14 months
No 9,385 47 Ref Ref
Yes 4,357 81 4.83 (4.44-5.27) 5.02 (4.52-5.57)

NBCCEDP, National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program; WW, WISEWOMAN program; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; AI, American Indian; AN, Alaska Native; Ref, referent group.
a Participant totals by characteristics differ because of missing data.
b Adjusted for all variables listed in the table, including WISEWOMAN rescreening.
c Included women who identified themselves as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.

Back to top

*URLs for nonfederal organizations are provided solely as a service to our users. URLs do not constitute an endorsement of any organization by CDC or the federal government, and none should be inferred. CDC is not responsible for the content of Web pages found at these URLs.

 




 



The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.


 Home 

Privacy Policy | Accessibility

CDC Home | Search | Health Topics A-Z

This page last reviewed March 22, 2013

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
 HHS logoUnited States Department of
Health and Human Services