Table 5.
Association of facility characteristics and false positive rates, based on models adjusted for patient characteristics and individual vulnerability measure in Table 4
| Facility characteristicb | Model with Education OR (95% CI)a | Model with Race/ethnicity OR (95% CI)a | Model with Rural/urban OR (95% CI)ab | Model with Income OR (95% CI)ab | Model with Composite score OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds of a False-Positive | |||||
| Ultrasound servicec | 1.88 (1.14, 3.10) | 1.78 (1.08, 2.94) | 1.68 (1.03, 2.74) | 1.76 (1.07, 2.90) | 1.73 (1.06, 2.83) |
| Biopsy Serviced | 1.28 (1.02, 1.59) | 1.30 (1.04, 1.62) | 1.17 (0.94, 1.45) | 1.24 (1.00, 1.55) | 1.25 (1.00, 1.56) |
| Affiliation with an Academic Centere | 0.97 (0.71, 1.32) | 0.97 (0.71, 1.32) | 1.07 (0.80, 1.43) | 0.99 (0.73, 1.35) | 1.03 (0.77, 1.38) |
| For Profitfg | 0.81 (0.65, 1.02) | 0.81 (0.64, 1.02) | 0.88 (0.70, 1.10) | 0.82 (0.65, 1.04) | 0.93 (0.74, 1.17) |
a
Adjusted for study site and patient characteristics: age, time since previous mammogram, and BI-RADS breast density
b
Rural/urban residence and income are generated from area-level data
c
‘No ultrasound services’ is the referent group
d
‘No biopsy services’ is the referent group
e
‘No academic affiliation’ is the referent group
f
‘Not for profit’ is the referent group
g
N = 127, as one site (N = 12) did not report profit status