Loading…
Systematic Differences in Validity of Self-Reported Mammography Behavior: A Problem for Intergroup Comparisons?
Background. Prior studies of recall accuracy for screening mammogram behavior have examined relatively homogeneous groups. Data are limited on possible systematic group differences, so we evaluated women's recall accuracy in two separate care systems in one city. Methods. Women 50 to 70 years o...
Saved in:
Published in: | Preventive medicine 1999-12, Vol.29 (6), p.577-580 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-20776a81300906752501ef62637e537edb1b1a72c5c08901c05bea38d1985d743 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-20776a81300906752501ef62637e537edb1b1a72c5c08901c05bea38d1985d743 |
container_end_page | 580 |
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 577 |
container_title | Preventive medicine |
container_volume | 29 |
creator | Lawrence, Valerie A. De Moor, Carl Glenn, M.Elizabeth |
description | Background. Prior studies of recall accuracy for screening mammogram behavior have examined relatively homogeneous groups. Data are limited on possible systematic group differences, so we evaluated women's recall accuracy in two separate care systems in one city.
Methods. Women 50 to 70 years old with and without screening mammograms 10 to 14 months prior were identified from fiscal, clinic, and radiology records at a military care system (MCS) and a county-funded system (CFS) for indigents. Mammogram status was verified through radiology records. Women were excluded if mammograms were diagnostic, done for other than annual screening, or had abnormal results. Interview ers blinded to mammogram status surveyed randomly selected eligible women.
Results. For 62 screened/31 unscreened MCS women and 78 screened/61 unscreened CFS women, specificity was similar, at 65 and 62%, respectively. In contrast, sensitivity varied significantly: 95% versus 79% (P = 0.011). Primary ethonocultural groups were Euro-American (MCS—60%) and Mexican American (CFS—85%). Although not different in specificity of recall (67% versus 61%), these major subgroups significantly differed in sensitivity (97% versus 80%, P = 0.017), proportion of true negatives due to never having a mammogram (35% versus 57%, P = 0.003), and proportion with ≥high school education (78% versus 19%, P < 0.00001).
Conclusion. Systematic differences in recall validity may exist and compromise the accuracy of intergroup comparisons. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1006/pmed.1999.0575 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69368911</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0091743599905753</els_id><sourcerecordid>69368911</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-20776a81300906752501ef62637e537edb1b1a72c5c08901c05bea38d1985d743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1P3DAQhq2Kqmxprz1WPnHLMpPETtxLBUv5kKhAXdqr5TgTcJXEwc6utP-eRLsSJw6jOcwzr_Q-jH1DWCKAPBs6qpeolFqCKMQHtkBQMoFUwhFbAChMijwTx-xzjP8BECXkn9gxggTIc1gwv97FkTozOssvXdNQoN5S5K7n_0zrajfuuG_4mtom-UODDyPV_LfpOv8UzPC84xf0bLbOhx_8nD8EX7XU8cYHftuPFJ6C3wx85bvBBBd9H39-YR8b00b6etgn7O_Vr8fVTXJ3f327Or9LbJbDmKRQFNKUmE0VQBYiFYDUyFRmBYlp6gorNEVqhYVSAVoQFZmsrFGVop4qn7DTfe4Q_MuG4qg7Fy21renJb6KWKpOlQpzA5R60wccYqNFDcJ0JO42gZ8V6VqxnxXpWPD18PyRvqvnyhu-dTkC5B2jqt3UUdLRutlq7QHbUtXfvZb8CGoCKlw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69368911</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Systematic Differences in Validity of Self-Reported Mammography Behavior: A Problem for Intergroup Comparisons?</title><source>Elsevier</source><creator>Lawrence, Valerie A. ; De Moor, Carl ; Glenn, M.Elizabeth</creator><creatorcontrib>Lawrence, Valerie A. ; De Moor, Carl ; Glenn, M.Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><description>Background. Prior studies of recall accuracy for screening mammogram behavior have examined relatively homogeneous groups. Data are limited on possible systematic group differences, so we evaluated women's recall accuracy in two separate care systems in one city.
Methods. Women 50 to 70 years old with and without screening mammograms 10 to 14 months prior were identified from fiscal, clinic, and radiology records at a military care system (MCS) and a county-funded system (CFS) for indigents. Mammogram status was verified through radiology records. Women were excluded if mammograms were diagnostic, done for other than annual screening, or had abnormal results. Interview ers blinded to mammogram status surveyed randomly selected eligible women.
Results. For 62 screened/31 unscreened MCS women and 78 screened/61 unscreened CFS women, specificity was similar, at 65 and 62%, respectively. In contrast, sensitivity varied significantly: 95% versus 79% (P = 0.011). Primary ethonocultural groups were Euro-American (MCS—60%) and Mexican American (CFS—85%). Although not different in specificity of recall (67% versus 61%), these major subgroups significantly differed in sensitivity (97% versus 80%, P = 0.017), proportion of true negatives due to never having a mammogram (35% versus 57%, P = 0.003), and proportion with ≥high school education (78% versus 19%, P < 0.00001).
Conclusion. Systematic differences in recall validity may exist and compromise the accuracy of intergroup comparisons.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0091-7435</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-0260</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1006/pmed.1999.0575</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10600440</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Data Collection ; Female ; Humans ; mammography ; Mammography - utilization ; Mass Screening - utilization ; Mental Recall ; Middle Aged ; Reproducibility of Results ; screening.tw ; sensitivity ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Socioeconomic Factors ; specificity ; Texas ; validity</subject><ispartof>Preventive medicine, 1999-12, Vol.29 (6), p.577-580</ispartof><rights>1999 American Health Foundation and Academic Press</rights><rights>Copyright 1999 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-20776a81300906752501ef62637e537edb1b1a72c5c08901c05bea38d1985d743</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-20776a81300906752501ef62637e537edb1b1a72c5c08901c05bea38d1985d743</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10600440$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lawrence, Valerie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Moor, Carl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glenn, M.Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><title>Systematic Differences in Validity of Self-Reported Mammography Behavior: A Problem for Intergroup Comparisons?</title><title>Preventive medicine</title><addtitle>Prev Med</addtitle><description>Background. Prior studies of recall accuracy for screening mammogram behavior have examined relatively homogeneous groups. Data are limited on possible systematic group differences, so we evaluated women's recall accuracy in two separate care systems in one city.
Methods. Women 50 to 70 years old with and without screening mammograms 10 to 14 months prior were identified from fiscal, clinic, and radiology records at a military care system (MCS) and a county-funded system (CFS) for indigents. Mammogram status was verified through radiology records. Women were excluded if mammograms were diagnostic, done for other than annual screening, or had abnormal results. Interview ers blinded to mammogram status surveyed randomly selected eligible women.
Results. For 62 screened/31 unscreened MCS women and 78 screened/61 unscreened CFS women, specificity was similar, at 65 and 62%, respectively. In contrast, sensitivity varied significantly: 95% versus 79% (P = 0.011). Primary ethonocultural groups were Euro-American (MCS—60%) and Mexican American (CFS—85%). Although not different in specificity of recall (67% versus 61%), these major subgroups significantly differed in sensitivity (97% versus 80%, P = 0.017), proportion of true negatives due to never having a mammogram (35% versus 57%, P = 0.003), and proportion with ≥high school education (78% versus 19%, P < 0.00001).
Conclusion. Systematic differences in recall validity may exist and compromise the accuracy of intergroup comparisons.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Data Collection</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>mammography</subject><subject>Mammography - utilization</subject><subject>Mass Screening - utilization</subject><subject>Mental Recall</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>screening.tw</subject><subject>sensitivity</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Socioeconomic Factors</subject><subject>specificity</subject><subject>Texas</subject><subject>validity</subject><issn>0091-7435</issn><issn>1096-0260</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1P3DAQhq2Kqmxprz1WPnHLMpPETtxLBUv5kKhAXdqr5TgTcJXEwc6utP-eRLsSJw6jOcwzr_Q-jH1DWCKAPBs6qpeolFqCKMQHtkBQMoFUwhFbAChMijwTx-xzjP8BECXkn9gxggTIc1gwv97FkTozOssvXdNQoN5S5K7n_0zrajfuuG_4mtom-UODDyPV_LfpOv8UzPC84xf0bLbOhx_8nD8EX7XU8cYHftuPFJ6C3wx85bvBBBd9H39-YR8b00b6etgn7O_Vr8fVTXJ3f327Or9LbJbDmKRQFNKUmE0VQBYiFYDUyFRmBYlp6gorNEVqhYVSAVoQFZmsrFGVop4qn7DTfe4Q_MuG4qg7Fy21renJb6KWKpOlQpzA5R60wccYqNFDcJ0JO42gZ8V6VqxnxXpWPD18PyRvqvnyhu-dTkC5B2jqt3UUdLRutlq7QHbUtXfvZb8CGoCKlw</recordid><startdate>19991201</startdate><enddate>19991201</enddate><creator>Lawrence, Valerie A.</creator><creator>De Moor, Carl</creator><creator>Glenn, M.Elizabeth</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19991201</creationdate><title>Systematic Differences in Validity of Self-Reported Mammography Behavior: A Problem for Intergroup Comparisons?</title><author>Lawrence, Valerie A. ; De Moor, Carl ; Glenn, M.Elizabeth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-20776a81300906752501ef62637e537edb1b1a72c5c08901c05bea38d1985d743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Data Collection</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>mammography</topic><topic>Mammography - utilization</topic><topic>Mass Screening - utilization</topic><topic>Mental Recall</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>screening.tw</topic><topic>sensitivity</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Socioeconomic Factors</topic><topic>specificity</topic><topic>Texas</topic><topic>validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lawrence, Valerie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Moor, Carl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glenn, M.Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Preventive medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lawrence, Valerie A.</au><au>De Moor, Carl</au><au>Glenn, M.Elizabeth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Systematic Differences in Validity of Self-Reported Mammography Behavior: A Problem for Intergroup Comparisons?</atitle><jtitle>Preventive medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Prev Med</addtitle><date>1999-12-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>577</spage><epage>580</epage><pages>577-580</pages><issn>0091-7435</issn><eissn>1096-0260</eissn><abstract>Background. Prior studies of recall accuracy for screening mammogram behavior have examined relatively homogeneous groups. Data are limited on possible systematic group differences, so we evaluated women's recall accuracy in two separate care systems in one city.
Methods. Women 50 to 70 years old with and without screening mammograms 10 to 14 months prior were identified from fiscal, clinic, and radiology records at a military care system (MCS) and a county-funded system (CFS) for indigents. Mammogram status was verified through radiology records. Women were excluded if mammograms were diagnostic, done for other than annual screening, or had abnormal results. Interview ers blinded to mammogram status surveyed randomly selected eligible women.
Results. For 62 screened/31 unscreened MCS women and 78 screened/61 unscreened CFS women, specificity was similar, at 65 and 62%, respectively. In contrast, sensitivity varied significantly: 95% versus 79% (P = 0.011). Primary ethonocultural groups were Euro-American (MCS—60%) and Mexican American (CFS—85%). Although not different in specificity of recall (67% versus 61%), these major subgroups significantly differed in sensitivity (97% versus 80%, P = 0.017), proportion of true negatives due to never having a mammogram (35% versus 57%, P = 0.003), and proportion with ≥high school education (78% versus 19%, P < 0.00001).
Conclusion. Systematic differences in recall validity may exist and compromise the accuracy of intergroup comparisons.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>10600440</pmid><doi>10.1006/pmed.1999.0575</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0091-7435 |
ispartof | Preventive medicine, 1999-12, Vol.29 (6), p.577-580 |
issn | 0091-7435 1096-0260 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69368911 |
source | Elsevier |
subjects | Aged Data Collection Female Humans mammography Mammography - utilization Mass Screening - utilization Mental Recall Middle Aged Reproducibility of Results screening.tw sensitivity Sensitivity and Specificity Socioeconomic Factors specificity Texas validity |
title | Systematic Differences in Validity of Self-Reported Mammography Behavior: A Problem for Intergroup Comparisons? |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T09%3A44%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Systematic%20Differences%20in%20Validity%20of%20Self-Reported%20Mammography%20Behavior:%20A%20Problem%20for%20Intergroup%20Comparisons?&rft.jtitle=Preventive%20medicine&rft.au=Lawrence,%20Valerie%20A.&rft.date=1999-12-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=577&rft.epage=580&rft.pages=577-580&rft.issn=0091-7435&rft.eissn=1096-0260&rft_id=info:doi/10.1006/pmed.1999.0575&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69368911%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-20776a81300906752501ef62637e537edb1b1a72c5c08901c05bea38d1985d743%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69368911&rft_id=info:pmid/10600440&rfr_iscdi=true |