Background Screening mammography rates vary geographically and have recently declined. Inadequate mammography resources in some areas may impair access to this technology. We assessed the relationship between availability of mammography machines and the use of screening. Methods The location and number of all mammography machines in the US were identified from US Food and Drug Administration records of certified facilities. Inadequate capacity was defined as <1.2 mammography machines per 10,000 women aged 40 or older, the threshold required to meet the Healthy People 2010 target screening rate. The impact of capacity on utilization was evaluated in two cohorts: female respondents age 40 or older to the 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey (BRFSS) and a 5% nationwide sample of female Medicare beneficiaries age 65 or older in 2004–2005. Results About 9% of women in the BRFSS cohort and 13% of women in the Medicare cohort lived in counties with <1.2 mammography machines per 10,000 women age 40 or older. In both cohorts, residence in a county with inadequate mammography capacity was associated with lower odds of a recent mammogram (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] in BRFSS: 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 – 0.98, p<0.05; AOR in Medicare: 0.86, 95% CI 0.85 – 0.87, p<0.05), controlling for demographic and health care characteristics. Conclusion In counties with few or no mammography machines, limited availability of imaging resources may be a barrier to screening. Efforts to increase the number of machines in low-capacity areas may improve mammography rates and reduce geographic disparities in breast cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Patient navigation can increase colorectal cancer screening rates. The net economic impact of a colonoscopy patient navigator program was evaluated in an urban public hospital setting. METHODS: Cost, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit analyses were performed of a colonoscopy patient navigation program at 3 urban public hospitals in the period from 2003 to 2007. Program effectiveness was assessed in a 2-group, pre-and post-program, nonrandomized evaluation, comparing program hospitals with comparison hospitals that served similar populations. Costs were assessed from the provider's perspective. Outcomes included colonoscopy volume, colonoscopy completion rate, program cost, incremental cost-effectiveness, and net monetary benefit. RESULTS: Patient navigation was associated with a 61% increase in average monthly colonoscopy volume at program hospitals, from 114 procedures to 184 procedures, compared with a 12% increase at comparison hospitals. Adjusted for other factors, the navigator program increased colonoscopy volume by 44 to 67 additional procedures per month. Average program cost varied from $50 to $300 per patient referred to a navigator. Incremental cost-effectiveness varied from $200 to $700 per additional colonoscopy. At 2 hospitals, net revenue associated with increased colonoscopy volume exceeded the program cost per additional colonoscopy, yielding a net financial benefit; at the third hospital, the program yielded a net cost. Variation between hospitals in the program's economic impact was primarily attributable to differences in personnel costs. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluation of this colonoscopy patient navigator program in an urban public hospital setting suggests that such programs can be a cost-effective use of limited

Objective: To assess the impact of mammography capacity on appointment wait times. Methods: We surveyed by telephone all mammography facilities federally certified in 2008 in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, New Mexico and New York using a simulated-patient format. County-level mammography capacity, defined as the number of mammography machines per 10,000 women age 40 and older, was estimated from FDA facility certification records and US Census data. Results: 1,614 (86%) of 1,882 mammography facilities completed the survey. Time until next available screening mammogram appointment was <1 week at 55% of facilities, 1-4 weeks at 34% of facilities, and >1 month at 11% of facilities. Facilities in counties with lower capacity had longer wait times, and a one-unit increase in county capacity was associated with 21% lower odds of a facility reporting a wait time >1 month (p<0.01). There was no association between wait time and the availability of evening or weekend appointments or digital mammography. Conclusion: Lower mammography capacity is associated with longer wait times for screening mammograms. Impact: Enhancement of mammography resources in areas with limited capacity may reduce wait times for screening mammogram appointments, thereby increasing access to services and rates of breast cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE The objective of our study was to assess the experiences and preferences of radiology residents with respect to breast imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS We surveyed radiology residents at 26 programs in New York and New Jersey. Survey topics included plans for subspecialty training, beliefs, and attitudes toward breast imaging and breast cancer screening and the likelihood of interpreting mammography in the future. RESULTS Three hundred forty-four residents completed the survey (response rate, 62%). The length of time spent training in breast imaging varied from no dedicated time (37%) to 1–8 weeks (40%) to more than 9 weeks (23%). Most respondents (97%) agreed that mammography is important to women’s health. More than 85% of residents believed that mammography should be interpreted by breast imaging specialists. Respondents shared negative views about mammography, agreeing with statements that the field was associated with a high risk of malpractice (99%), stress (94%), and low reimbursement (68%). Respondents endorsed several positive attributes of mammography, including job availability (97%), flexible work schedules (94%), and few calls or emergencies (93%). Most radiology residents (93%) said that they were likely to pursue subspecialty training, and 7% expressed interest in breast imaging fellowships. CONCLUSION Radiology residents’ negative and positive views about mammography seem to be independent of time spent training in mammography and of future plans to pursue fellowship training in breast imaging. Systematic assessment of the plans and preferences of radiology residents can facilitate the development of strategies to attract trainees to careers in breast imaging.

No abstract