IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1997875782-786_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Race and mammography use in two North Carolina counties

Author

Listed:
  • O'Malley, M.S.
  • Earp, J.A.L.
  • Harris, R.P.

Abstract

Objectives. This study investigated racial differences in mammography use and their associations with physicians' recommendations and other factors. Methods. The study used 1988 survey data for 948 women 50 years of age and older from the New Hanover Breast Cancer Screening Program. Racial differences in terms of physician recommendation, personal characteristics, health characteristics, and attitudes toward breast cancer and mammography were examined. Factors at least minimally associated with race and use were included in multivariate logistic regression analyses to examine the effect of race while controlling for other factors. Results. In comparison with White women, Black women were half as likely to report ever having had a mammogram (27% vs 52%) and having a mammogram in the past year (17% vs 36%). Black women also significantly less often reported physician recommendation (25% vs 52%). Although Black and White women differed significantly in other characteristics, multivariate logistic regression analyses indicated that physician recommendation accounted for 60% to 75% of the initial racial differences in mammography use. Conclusions. Understanding physicians' recommendations for breast cancer screening is a critical first step to increasing mammography use in disadvantaged populations.

Suggested Citation

  • O'Malley, M.S. & Earp, J.A.L. & Harris, R.P., 1997. "Race and mammography use in two North Carolina counties," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(5), pages 782-786.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1997:87:5:782-786_1
    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.

    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:1997:87:5:782-786_1. 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.