IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/199282101386-1388_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the use of mammography: Two methods compared

Author

Listed:
  • Degnan, D.
  • Harris, R.
  • Ranney, J.
  • Quade, D.
  • Earp, J.A.
  • Gonzalez, J.

Abstract

Population studies often estimate mammography use using women's self- reports. In one North Carolina county, we compared self-report surveys with a second method-counting mammograms per population-for 1987 and 1989. Estimates from self-reports (35% in 1987, 55% in 1989) were considerably higher than those from mammogram counts (20% in 1987, 36% in 1989). We then confirmed 66% of self-reports in the past year. Self-reported use is more accurate regarding whether a woman has had a mammogram than when she had it, but self- reports accurately measure change over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Degnan, D. & Harris, R. & Ranney, J. & Quade, D. & Earp, J.A. & Gonzalez, J., 1992. "Measuring the use of mammography: Two methods compared," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 82(10), pages 1386-1388.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1992:82:10:1386-1388_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hanming Fang & Yang Wang, 2015. "Estimating Dynamic Discrete Choice Models With Hyperbolic Discounting, With An Application To Mammography Decisions," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56(2), pages 565-596, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1992:82:10:1386-1388_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.