Skip to main content
. 2005 May;20(5):432–437. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40281.x

Table 2.

Physician and Mammography Factors for 970 Women with Abnormal Mammography, San Francisco Bay Area, 1999–2001

n (%)
Physician Factors
Ethnic concordance with physician 350 (36.1)
Preference for doctor of same ethnicity 165 (17.0)
Method of notification of result
 In writing 402 (41.9)
 In person/phone by primary MD 135 (14.1)
 In person/phone by other MD or NP 220 (22.9)
 In person/phone by non-MD/NP staff 142 (14.8)
 Can't tell who or how 60 (6.3)
Participant's understanding of physician explanation of the mammogram result
 Full 675 (69.6)
 Somewhat 133 (13.7)
 Not at all 19 (2.0)
 Did not explain 136 (14.0)
 Don't know 7 (0.7)
Consulted with primary MD about mammogram 533 (55.0)
Clinical sites
 Academic health center 187 (19.3)
 Group model health plan sites 657 (67.7)
 Private community hospital 81 (8.4)
 Public hospital 45 (4.6)
Mammography/Breast Factors
Participant's report of abnormality
 Normal 395 (40.7)
 Normal, but needed more tests 217 (22.4)
 Abnormal 324 (33.4)
 Don't know 34 (3.5)
Radiology report—BI-RADS classification
 Probably benign (3) 519 (53.5)
 Indeterminate (0) 147 (15.2)
 Suspicious/highly suggestive of malignancy (4/5) 304 (31.3)
Participant self-report of any follow-up test (mammogram, ultrasound, and/or biopsy) 765 (78.9)

NP, Nurse Practitioner; BI-RADS, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System