Original Article

A Brochure to Improve Understanding of Incomplete Mammogram Results Among Black Women at a Public Hospital in Miami, Florida

Authors: Erin N. Marcus, MD, MPH, Lee M. Sanders, MD, MPH, Beth A. Jones, PhD, MPH, Tulay Koru-Sengul, PhD, MHS

Abstract

Objectives: Black women are at increased risk of being called back for additional studies after a screening mammogram. With focus group input, we developed a brochure to improve awareness of the frequency of abnormal results. This study explored the brochure’s acceptability and effect on understanding risk and breast cancer fears among black mammography patients at an urban safety-net breast imaging center in Miami, Florida.

Methods: A randomized controlled trial of the brochure (plus the standard result notification letter) versus usual care (standard notification letter alone). Black English-speaking women with an incomplete mammography result were randomized to the intervention or control group. Consenting participants completed a telephone questionnaire. Outcomes included awareness of result, anxiety level, and brochure acceptability. The χ2 or Fisher exact test was used and a univariate logistic regression was performed for intervention and control odds ratios.

Results: A total of 106 women were randomly selected to receive the brochure plus the letter or the letter alone. One chose to opt out; a minimum of three attempts were made to reach each of the remaining 105 women by telephone. Verbal communication was established with 59 of the randomized women, and 51 of those women agreed to participate in a survey to evaluate the brochure. There was no significant difference between the surveyed groups in knowledge of the result and follow-up plan. Surveyed intervention subjects were more likely to agree that “it is very common for women to have to follow up after a mammogram” (odds ratio [OR] 25.91, P = 0.029) and less likely to agree with the statement “getting a follow-up mammogram is scary” (OR 0.24, P = 0.021). Most intervention subjects said the pamphlet helped them understand their result “a lot” (79%, 19) and viewed it as “extremely” or “mostly” clear (96%, 23). Intervention subjects also voiced greater awareness of a telephone number they could call for more information about cancer (OR 11.38, P = 0.029).

Conclusions: A culturally tailored brochure explaining the frequency of abnormal mammograms was well received by women at a large safety-net health system. Pilot testing suggests that it may improve patient perception of risk and awareness of informational resources. This strategy should be considered to enhance result communication.
Posted in: Medical Oncology47 Obstetrics and Gynecology79

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. McCarthy AM, Yamartino P, Yang J, et al. Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST). Med Care 2015;53:673-678.
2. Consedine NS. A false-positive on screening mammography has a negative psychosocial impact up to 3 years after receiving the all clear. Evid Based Ment Health 2013;16:115.
3. Barton MB, Morley DS, Moore S, et al. Decreasing women’ anxieties after abnormal mammograms: a controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:529-538.
4. Rosenberg RD, Haneuse SJ, Geller BM, et al. Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammogram: variability of facilities. Radiology 2011;261:404-413.
5. Amornsiripanitch N, Mangano M, Niell BL. Screening mammography: patient perceptions and preferences regarding communication of estimated breast cancer risk. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;208:1163-1170.
6. Jones BA, Reams K, Calvocoressi L, et al. Adequacy of communicating results from screening mammograms to African American and white women. Am J Public Health 2007;97:531-538.
7. Karliner LS, Patricia Kaplan C, Juarbe T, et al. Poor patient comprehension of abnormal mammography results. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:432-437.
8. Food and Drug Administration. Direct-to-patient mammogram results: it’s the law. https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emittingproducts/mammographyqualitystandardsactandprogram/facilityscorecard/ucm596911.htm. Updated February 15, 2018. Accessed March 2, 2018.
9. Marcus EN, Drummond D, Dietz N. Urban women’s preferences for learning of their mammogram result: a qualitative study. J Cancer Educ 2012;27:156-164.
10. Simply Put: A Guide for Creating Easy-to-Understand Materials. 3rd ed. Atlanta: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Communication Services April 2009.
11. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ 2003;327:741-744.
12. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, et al. Screening for Breast Cancer: An Update for the US Preventive Services Task Force [Internet]. Report no. 10-05142-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 2009.
13. Jones BA, Dailey A, Calvocoressi L, et al. Inadequate follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms: findings from the race differences in screening mammography process study (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2005;16:809-821.
14. Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, et al. Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:561-566.
15. O'Connor AM, Cranney A. Patient decision aids-evaluation measures. User’s manual for acceptability. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/user_manuals/um_acceptability.pdf. Accessed October 21, 2018.
16. Obadina ET, Dubenske LL, McDowell HE, et al. Online support: impact on anxiety in women who experience an abnormal screening mammogram. Breast 2014;23:743-748.
17. Austoker J, Ong G. Written information needs of women who are recalled for further investigation of breast screening: results of a multicentre study. J Med Screen 1994;1:238-244.
18. Nekhlyudov L, Braddock CH, 3rd. An approach to enhance communication about screening mammography in primary care. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2009;18:1403-1412.
19. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Risk charts: putting cancer in context. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:799-804.
20. Mathieu E, Barratt A, Davey HM, et al. Informed choice in mammography screening: a randomized trial of a decision aid for 70-year-old women. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:2039-2046.
21. Hoffman RM, Lewis CL, Pignone MP, et al. Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making 2010;30(5 suppl):53S-64S.