Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-vhqbp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-03T08:35:12.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Informing the Mammography Coverage Debate: Results of Meta-analysis, Computer Modeling, and Issue Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Kit N. Simpson  and
Lyle B. Snyder
Kit N. Simpson
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina School of Public Health
Lyle B. Snyder
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina School of Public Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Methods of meta-analysis, computer modeling, and issue analysis are used to answer four key questions related to efficacy, cost, and political feasibility of legislating insurance coverage for mammography. The findings are presented, and the strengths and weaknesses of the combined use of these methods to inform policy debate at the regional level are discussed.

Information

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , Fall 1991 , pp. 616 - 631
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Andersson, I.Radiographic screening for breast carcinoma III. Appearance of carcinoma and number of projections to be used at screening. Acta Radiologica Diagnosis, 1981, 22, 407–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Andersson, I., Aspgren, U., Janson, L., et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: The Malmo mammographic screening trial. British Medical Journal, 1988, 297, 943–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Andersson, I., Hildell, J., Muhlow, A., & Petterson, H.Number of projections in mammography: Influence on detection of breast disease. American Journal of Radiology, 1978. 130, 349–51.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Andersson, I., & Sigfusson, B. F.Screening for breast cancer in Malmo: A randomized trial. Recent Results in Cancer Research, 1987, 105, 62–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Aron, J. L., & Prorok, P. C.An analysis of the mortality effect in a breast cancer screening study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 1986, 15, 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Baker, L. H.Breast cancer detection demonstration project: Five-year summary report. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 1982, 32(07/08), 194–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Bassett, L. W., Bunnell, D. H., Jahanshahi, R., et al. Breast cancer detection: One versus two views. Radiology, 1987, 165, 95–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Brown, J. T., & Hulka, B. S.Screening mammography in the elderly: A case-control study. Journal of General Medicine, 1988, 3, 126–31.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Buxton, M. J.Managing new technology: Economic research and practical decisions. Health Services Management Research, 1988, 7(03), 43–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Centers for Disease Control. State-to-state variation in screening mammograms for women 50 years of age and older — Behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 1987. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1989, 38(03 17), 157–60.Google Scholar
11.Centers for Disease Control. Provisional estimates from the national health interview survey supplement on cancer control — United States, January–March 1987. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1988, 37(07 15), 417–25.Google Scholar
12.Centers for Disease Control. Use of mammography for breast cancer screening — Rhode Island, 1987. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1988, 37(06 17), 357–60.Google Scholar
13.Centers for Disease Control. Screening for cervical and breast cancer southeastern Kentucky. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1988, 36(01 8), 845–49.Google Scholar
14.Centers for Disease Control. Trends in screening mammograms for women 50 years of age and older – Behavioral surveillance system, 1987. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1989, 38(03 10), 137–40.Google Scholar
15.Chu, K. C., Smart, C. R., & Tarone, R. E.Analysis of breast cancer mortality and stage distribution by age for the health insurance plan clinical trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1988, 80, 1125–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Collette, H. J. A., Day, N. E., Rombach, J. J., & DeWaard, F.Evaluation of screening for breast cancer in a non-randomized study (the DOM project) by means of a case-control study. Lancet, 1984, i, 1224–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Cooper, H. M.The integrative research review. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1984.Google Scholar
18.DeWaard, F., Collette, H. J. A., Robmach, J. J., et al. The DOM project for the early detection of breast cancer, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Journal of Chronic Disease, 1984, 37, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Dougherty, D. M.Breast cancer screening for Medicare beneficiaries: Effectiveness, costs to Medicare and medical resources required. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, 1987.Google Scholar
20.Drummond, M. F.Allocating resources. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Eddy, D. M.Can*trol: A computer model for designing CANcer ConTROL programs. Center for Health Policy Research and Education, Duke University, Durham, NC, 1986, mimeograph.Google Scholar
22.Eddy, D. M.Screening for breast cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1989, 111, 389–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Feig, S. A. Low-dose mammography: Assessment of theoretical risk. In Feig, S. A. & Mclelland, R. (eds.), Breast carcinoma, current diagnosis and treatment. New York: Masson, 1983, 69–76.Google Scholar
24.Fox, S. A., Klos, D. S., & Tsou, C. V.Underuse of screening mammography by family physicians. Radiology, 1988, 166, 431–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Fox, S. A., Kimme-Smith, C., & Klos, D. S.The technology of mammography: Misunderstood and underutilized. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 521–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Frisell, J.Mammographic screening for breast cancer: A clinical study based on data from the Stockholm trial. Doctoral dissertation. Stockholm: Karolinska Institutet, 1989.Google Scholar
27.Frisell, J., Eklund, G., Hellstrom, L., et al. The Stockholm breast cancer screening trial — 5-year results and stage at discovery. Breast Cancer Research Treatment, 1988, 13, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Frisell, J., Eklund, G., Hellstrom, L., & Somell, A.Analysis of interval breast carcinomas in a randomized screening trial in Stockholm. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 1987, 9, 219–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Frisell, J., Glas, U., Hellstrom, L., & Somell, A.Randomized mammographic screening for breast cancer in Stockholm. Design, first round results and comparison. Breast Cancer Research Treatment, 1986, 8, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Galbraith, R. F.A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 1988, 7, 889–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Gladen, B. C.Brief reports on graphing rate ratios. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1983, 118, 905–08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Gold, R. H., & Bassett, L. W. Mammography: History and state of the art. Breast Carcinoma, Current Diagnosis and Treatment. New York: Masson, 1983, 96.Google Scholar
33.Greer, A. L.Rationing medical technology. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1987, 3, 199–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Habbema, J. D. F., van Oortmarssen, G. J., van Putten, D. J., et al. Age-specific reduction in breast cancer mortality by screening: An analysis of the results of the health insurance plan of greater New York study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1986, 77, 317–20.Google ScholarPubMed
35.Hayward, R., Shapiro, M. F., Freeman, H. E., & Corey, C.Who gets screened for cervical and breast cancer? Results from a new national survey. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1988, 148, 1177–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Haus, A. G. Physical principles and radiation dose in mammography. In Feig, S. A. & Mclelland, R. (eds.), Breast carcinoma, current diagnosis and treatment. New York: Masson, 1983, 99–114.Google Scholar
37.Haus, A. G.Recent trends in screen-film mammography: Technical factors and radiation dose. Recent Results in Cancer Research, 1987, 105, 48.Google ScholarPubMed
38.Johnson, R. A., & Murata, P. J.Demographic, clinical, and financial factors relating to the completion rate of screening mammography. Cancer Detection and Prevention, 1988, 11, 259–66.Google Scholar
39.Light, R. J., & Pillmer, D. B.Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40.Louis, T. A.Findings for public health from meta-analyses. Annual Review of Public Health, 1985, 6, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.HCFA. Division of National Cost Estimates, Office of the Actuary, Health Care Financing Administration. National health expenditures, 1986–2000. Health Care Financing Review, 1987, 8(Summer), 1–36.Google Scholar
42.HCFA. Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988, 1988.Google Scholar
43.Mosteller, F., & Burdick, E.Current issues in health care technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 5, 123–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44.North Carolina Cancer Control Program. A report to the governor and general assembly, Raleigh, NC, 12 1989.Google Scholar
45.Palli, D., del Turco, M. R., Buiatti, E., et al. A case-control study of the efficacy of a non-randomized breast cancer screening program in Florence (Italy). International Journal of Cancer, 1986, 38, 501–04.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46.Roberts, M. M, Alexander, F. E., Anderson, T. J., et al. The Edinburgh randomized trial of screening for breast cancer: Description of method. British Journal of Cancer,1984, 50, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Schmidt, J. G.Variance and dissent: The epidemiology of mass breast cancer screening—A plea for a valid measure of benefit. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1990, 43, 215–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48.Scitovsky, A. A., & McCall, N.Economic impact of breast cancer. Frontiers of Radiation Therapy and Oncology, 1976, 11, 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49.Seidman, H., Gelb, S., Silverberg, E., et al. Survival experience in the breast cancer demonstration project. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 1987, 37, 258–90.Google Scholar
50.Shapiro, S.Evidence on screening for breast cancer from a randomized trial. Cancer, 1977, 39, 2772–82.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51.Strax, P.Mass screening for control of breast cancer. Cancer, 1984, 53, 665–70.3.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52.Sullivan, K. M.Comments received on Walker's odd man out approach. American Journal of Public Health, 1989, 79, 871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53.Tabar, L., Fagerberg, C. J. G., Gad, A., et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Lancet, 1985, i, 829–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54.Tabar, L., Gad, A., Holmberg, L. H., & Ljungquist, U.Significant reduction in advanced breast cancer: Results of the first seven years of mammography screening in Kopparberg, Sweden. Diagnostic Imaging Clinics in Medicine, 1985, 54, 158–64.Google ScholarPubMed
55.Taplin, S., Anderman, C., & Grothaus, L.Breast cancer risk and participation in mammographic screening. American Journal of Public Health, 1989, 79, 1494–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56.Thomas, B. A., & Price, J. L.The Guildford breast screening project: 6-year assessment. Recent Results in Cancer Research, 1987, 105, 67–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57.Thompson, G. B., Kessler, L. G., & Boss, L. P.Breast cancer screening legislation in the United States: A commentary. American Journal of Public Health, 1989, 79, 1541–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58.Torrance, G. W., & Feeny, D.Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 5, 559–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59.UK Trial of Early Detection of Breast Cancer Group. Trial of early detection of breast cancer: Description of method. British Journal of Cancer, 1981, 44, 618–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60.UK Trial of Early Detection of Breast Cancer Group. First results of mortality reduction in the UK trial of early detection of breast cancer. Lancet, 1988, ii, 411–16.Google Scholar
61.Verbeek, A. L. M., Hendricks, J. H. C. L., Holland, R., et al. Reduction of breast cancer mortality through mass screening with modern mammography. Lancet, 1984, i, 1222–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62.Verbeek, A. L. M., Hendricks, J. H. C. L., Holland, R., et al. Mammographic screening and breast cancer mortality: Age specific effects in Nijmegen project, 1975–82. Lancet, 1985, i, 865–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63.Von Rosen, A., Frisell, J., Glas, U., et al. Nonpalpable invasive breast carcinomas from the Stockholm screening project. Acta Oncology, 1989, 28, 23–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64.Walker, A. M., Martin-Moreno, J. M., & Atalejo, F. R.Odd man out: A graphic approach to meta analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 1988, 78, 961–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65.Weinstein, M. C.Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent or treat coronary heart disease. Annual Review of Public Health, 1985, 6, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66.Weinstein, M. C.Principles of cost-effective resource allocation in health care organizations. International Journal of Health Care Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67.Wortman, P. M., & Yeaton, W. H.Using research synthesis in medical technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1987, 3, 509–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
68.Zapka, J. G., Stoddard, A. M., Costanza, M. E., & Greene, H. L.Breast cancer screening by mammography: Utilization and associated factors. American Journal of Public Health, 1989, 79, 1499–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed