Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 1997 Aug;51(4):378–382. doi: 10.1136/jech.51.4.378

Enthusiasm or uncertainty: small area variations in the use of mammography services in Ontario, Canada.

V Goel 1, K Iron 1, J I Williams 1
PMCID: PMC1060504  PMID: 9328542

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine the variation in mammography utilisation in relation to age group and indication across health planning regions in Ontario, Canada. DESIGN: This study includes all women aged 30 and over in Ontario who received a mammogram between July 1, 1990 and December 31, 1991. Data from a sample of 10,000 women aged 50-69 were used to assign mammogram indication as "screening", "possible diagnostic", or "probable diagnostic" based on previous health care utilisation patterns. Age specific rates and age adjusted rates in relation to age group (30-39, 40-49, 50-69, and 70 + years) and region were derived. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, 572,762 women received one or more mammograms. Rates increased from 30-54 years and decreased thereafter. Similar variations were seen in the 40-49 and 50-69 age groups. The ranking in the area specific rates remained consistent for all ages except the 30-39 year range. In relation to indication, the largest variation across regions occurred in the screening group. CONCLUSIONS: Mammography utilisation varies across age groups. The greatest variability is for screening, probably because of physician referral patterns, patient uptake, and perhaps access to mammography. The extent of variation was similar when compared between groups where recommendations were consistent (ages 50-59) and where they were inconsistent (ages 40-49) suggesting that perhaps enthusiasm rather than uncertainty is related to regional variation for this procedure.

Full text

PDF
378

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Andrews H. F., Kerner J. F., Zauber A. G., Mandelblatt J., Pittman J., Struening E. Using census and mortality data to target small areas for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening. Am J Public Health. 1994 Jan;84(1):56–61. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.1.56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chassin M. R. Explaining geographic variations. The enthusiasm hypothesis. Med Care. 1993 May;31(5 Suppl):YS37–YS44. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199305001-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Clay M. G., Hislop T. G., Kan L., Olivotto I. A., Burhenne L. J. Screening mammography in British Columbia: 1988-1993. Am J Surg. 1994 May;167(5):490–492. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(94)90241-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Degnan D., Harris R., Ranney J., Quade D., Earp J. A., Gonzalez J. Measuring the use of mammography: two methods compared. Am J Public Health. 1992 Oct;82(10):1386–1388. doi: 10.2105/ajph.82.10.1386. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Diehr P., Cain K., Connell F., Volinn E. What is too much variation? The null hypothesis in small-area analysis. Health Serv Res. 1990 Feb;24(6):741–771. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hall R. E., Cohen M. M. Variations in hysterectomy rates in Ontario: does the indication matter? CMAJ. 1994 Dec 15;151(12):1713–1719. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Howe H. L. Repeat mammography among women over 50 years of age. Am J Prev Med. 1992 May-Jun;8(3):182–185. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Iscoe N. A., Goel V., Wu K., Fehringer G., Holowaty E. J., Naylor C. D. Variation in breast cancer surgery in Ontario. CMAJ. 1994 Feb 1;150(3):345–352. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Miller A. B., Baines C. J., To T., Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. CMAJ. 1992 Nov 15;147(10):1459–1476. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Miller A. B., Baines C. J., To T., Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. CMAJ. 1992 Nov 15;147(10):1477–1488. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mosely R. R., 2nd, Wolinsky F. D. The use of proxies in health surveys. Substantive and policy implications. Med Care. 1986 Jun;24(6):496–510. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198606000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Moskowitz M. Guidelines for screening for breast cancer. Is a revision in order? Radiol Clin North Am. 1992 Jan;30(1):221–233. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Nasseri K., Bastani R., Bernstein S., Breslow L. Hospital information system and patterns of cancer screening. J Med Syst. 1994 Dec;18(6):335–342. doi: 10.1007/BF00999275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Polednak A. P., Lane D. S., Burg M. A. Mail versus telephone surveys on mammography utilization among women 50-75 years old. Med Care. 1991 Mar;29(3):243–250. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199103000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Rutqvist L. E., Miller A. B., Andersson I., Hakama M., Hakulinen T., Sigfússon B. F., Tabár L. Reduced breast-cancer mortality with mammography screening--an assessment of currently available data. Int J Cancer Suppl. 1990;5:76–84. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910460711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sienko D. G., Hahn R. A., Mills E. M., Yoon-DeLong V., Ciesielski C. A., Williamson G. D., Teutsch S. M., Klenn P. J., Berkelman R. L. Mammography use and outcomes in a community. The Greater Lansing Area Mammography Study. Cancer. 1993 Mar 1;71(5):1801–1809. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19930301)71:5<1801::aid-cncr2820710515>3.0.co;2-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ugnat A. M., Naylor C. D. Regionalized delivery and variable utilization of coronary artery bypass grafting in Ontario from 1981 to 1991. CMAJ. 1994 Sep 1;151(5):575–580. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Walter S. D., Clarke E. A., Hatcher J., Stitt L. W. A comparison of physician and patient reports of Pap smear histories. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(4):401–410. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(88)90148-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Wennberg J. E. Future directions for small area variations. Med Care. 1993 May;31(5 Suppl):YS75–YS80. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199305001-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. White E., Urban N., Taylor V. Mammography utilization, public health impact, and cost-effectiveness in the United States. Annu Rev Public Health. 1993;14:605–633. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pu.14.050193.003133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Zapka J. G., Stoddard A. M., Costanza M. E., Greene H. L. Breast cancer screening by mammography: utilization and associated factors. Am J Public Health. 1989 Nov;79(11):1499–1502. doi: 10.2105/ajph.79.11.1499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES